Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

JS 44C/SDNY

REV. 4/2014
J&&*
t
CIVIL COV
Ihfl^p nei&i replace norsupp The JS-44 civil cover sheet and theinformation contained hjip nei&creplace nor supplement thefiling and service of
pleadings orother papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the
Judicial Conference of the UnitedStates in September 1974, is required foruse of the Clerkof Court forthe purpose of
initiating the civil docket sheet.
DENTs OCT 0220'
Grands Chais de France Group, SAS and La Maison
Du Vigneron, SAS
PLAINTIFFS
Moet Hennessy USA, Inc
ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER
Evan Glassman
ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
John A. Clifford
Steptoe&JohnsonLLP, 1114Avenueof the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 506-3900 , ,
CAUSE OFACTION(CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE ABRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSF)
(DONOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)
Lanliam Act Sections32 and 43(a), 15U.S.C. 1114and 1125(a);New York General Business Law
Section 349, and New York Common Law
Has this action, case, or proceeding, or one essentially the same been previously filed in SDNY at any time? NaEVesMJudge Previously Assigned
If yes, was this case Vol. fj Invol. Dismissed. No fj Yes fj If yes,give date &CaseNo.
Merchant & Gould, PC. 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Tel: (480) 725-8806
IS THIS AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CASE?
(PLACEAN[x] INONEBOXONLY)
TORTS
No 0 Yes
NATURE OF SUIT
[]110
11120
11130
(1110
[1150
11151
11152
11153
1)160
11190
11195
I 1196
PERSONAL INJURY
[ ] 310 AIRPLANE
[ ]315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT
LIABILITY
[ ] 320 ASSAULT, LIBEL &
SLANDER
( ] 330 FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY
( ) 340 MARINE
( 1345 MARINE PRODUCT
LIABILITY
( ] 350 MOTOR VEHICLE
[ ] 355 MOTOR VEHICLE
PRODUCT LIABILITY
( ] 360 OTHER PERSONAL
INJURY
[ ]362 PERSONAL INJURY -
MED MALPRACTICE
INSURANCE
MARINE
MILLER ACT
NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT
RECOVERY OF
OVERPAYMENT &
ENFORCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT
MEDICARE ACT
RECOVERY OF
DEFAULTED
STUDENT LOANS
(EXCL VETERANS)
RECOVERY OF
OVERPAYMENT
OF VETERAN'S
BENEFITS
STOCKHOLDERS
SUITS
OTHER
CONTRACT
CONTRACT
PRODUCT
LIABILITY
FRANCHISE
PERSONAL INJURY FORFEITURE/PENALTY
[ ] 367 HEALTHCARE/
PHARMACEUTICAL PERSONAL , , 625 DRUGRELATED
INJURY/PRODUCT LIABILITY SE,2URE 0F PROPERTY
[ ]365 PERSONAL INJURY 21 usc 881
PRODUCT LIABILITY . , Ran nTHCR
[]368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL ' ' 69 ER
INJURY PRODUCT
LIABILITY
PERSONAL PROPERTY
[ ] 370 OTHER FRAUD
[ ] 371 TRUTH INLENDING
ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES
CIVIL RIGHTS
[ ]440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS
(Non-Prisoner)
[ ] 441 VOTING
[ ]442 EMPLOYMENT
[ ] 443 HOUSING/
ACCOMMODATIONS
[ ] 445 AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES -
EMPLOYMENT
[ ]446 AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES -OTHER
[ ] 448 EDUCATION
[ ] 380 OTHER PERSONAL
PROPERTY DAMAGE
[ ] 385 PROPERTY DAMAGE
PRODUCT LIABILITY
PRISONER PETITIONS
[ ) 463 ALIEN DETAINEE
[ ] 510 MOTIONS TO
VACATE SENTENCE
28 USC 2255
[ ] 530 HABEAS CORPUS
[ ]535 DEATH PENALTY
[ l 540 MANDAMUS &OTHER
REAL PROPERTY
LABOR
I ] 710 FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT
I ]720 LABOR/MGMT
RELATIONS
[ ] 740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT
[ ] 751 FAMILY MEDICAL
LEAVE ACT (FMLA)
[ ] 790 OTHER LABOR
LITIGATION
[ J791 EMPLRETINC
SECURITY ACT
IMMIGRATION
[ ] 462 NATURALIZATION
APPLICATION
[ ] 465 OTHER IMMIGRATION
ACTIONS
I 1210
[ ]220
[ ]230
1 1240
1 1245
[ ]290
LAND
CONDEMNATION
FORECLOSURE
RENT LEASE &
EJECTMENT
TORTS TO LAND
TORT PRODUCT
LIABILITY
ALL OTHER
REAL PROPERTY
Checkif demanded incomplaint:
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
[ ] 550 CIVIL RIGHTS
[ j 555 PRISON CONDITION
]560 CIVIL DETAINEE
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES
BANKRUPTCY
[ ] 422 APPEAL
28 USC 158
( ] 423 WITHDRAWAL
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
[ ] 820 COPYRIGHTS
[ ] 830 PATENT
bd 840 TRADEMARK
SOCIAL SECURITY
[ ]861 HIA(1395ff)
[ J 862 BLACK LUNG (923)
[ ] 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
[ ] 864 SSID TITLE XVI
[ ] 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
[ ] 870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or
Defendant)
[ ] 871 IRS-THIRD PARTY
26 USC 7609
OTHER STATUTES
] 375 FALSE CLAIMS
] 400 STATE
REAPPORTIONMENT
[ ]410 ANTITRUST
| ] 430 BANKS &BANKING
[ ] 450 COMMERCE
[ ]460 DEPORTATION
[ ]470 RACKETEER INFLU
ENCED & CORRUPT
ORGANIZATION ACT
(RICO)
[ ]480 CONSUMER CREDIT
[ ]490 CABLE/SATELLITE TV
( ] 850 SECURITIES/
COMMODITIES/
EXCHANGE
111
[ ) 890 OTHER STATUTORY
ACTIONS
[ ]891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS
[ ]893 ENVIRONMENTAL
MATTERS
[ ] 895 FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT
[ ] 896 ARBITRATION
[ ] 899 ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT/REVIEW OR
APPEAL OF AGENCY DECISION
[ ] 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
STATE STATUTES

M THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y.?


DOCKET NUMBER JUDGE DEMAND $ OTHER
CheckYES only if demanded in complaint
JURY DEMAND: YES l*jNO NOTE: You must also submit at the time of filingthe Statement of Relatedness form (Form IH-32).
(PLACEANx INONEBOXONLY) ORIGIN
2 Removed from 3 Remanded D 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict
State Court from ReoPened (Specify District) Lt.gat.on
j 3. all parties represented *
| | b. Atleast one
party is pro se.
(PLACEANxINONEBOXONLY) BASIS OF JURISDICTION IFDIVERSITY, INDICATE
D 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF 2 U.S. DEFENDANT [x] 3 FEDERAL QUESTION Q4 DIVERSITY CITIZENSHIPBELOW.
(U.S. NOT A PARTY)
CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)
(Place an [X] inone boxfor Plaintiff and one boxfor Defendant)
L3 1 Original
Proceeding
I I 7 Appeal toDistrict
Judge from
Magistrate Judge
Judgment
PTF DEF
CITIZENOF THIS STATE [ ] 1 [ ] 1
CITIZENOF ANOTHER STATE [ ] 2 [ ) 2
CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY
PTF DEF
l)3[)3
PTF DEF
INCORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE [ ] 5 [ ] 5
OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE
INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE [ ] 4 [ ] 4
OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE
FOREIGN NATION
PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) ANDCOUNTY(IES)
Moet Hennessy USA, Inc.
c/o Steptoe and Johnson LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) ANDCOUNTY(IES)
Grands Chais de France Group, SAS
1 Rue de la Division Leclerc
67290 Petersbach
France
La Maison du Vigneron, SAS
Route De Champagnole
39570 Crancot
France
[]6 ()6
DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWN
REPRESENTATION IS HEREBYMADETHAT, ATTHIS TIME, I HAVEBEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN
RE91BENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:
Check one: THIS ACTION SHOULD BEASSIGNED TO: WHITE PLAINS \x\ MANHATTAN
(DONOTcheck either box if this a PRISONER PETITION/PRISONERCIVIL RIGHTS
COMPLAINT.)
DATE , SIGNATURE OFATTORNEY OFRECORD ADMITTED TOPRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT
io\'l\\4 s. - /.. ** _ [1no
T# v ry- jr
Magistrate Judge isto bedesignated by theClerk of theCoui1ag JUDGENETBURN
RECEIPT
Magistrate Judge
Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court by Deputy Clerk, DATED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (NEW YORK SOUTHERN)
[X YES (DATE ADMITTED Mo.Match Yr. 1995
Attorney Bar Code # EG9493
is so Designated.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MOET HENNESSY USA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
GRANDS CHAIS DE FRANCE GROUP, SAS,
AND LA MAISON DU VIGNERON, SAS
Defendants.
14 CV
Civil Action No.
COMPLAINT
7956
JUDGE*
COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, j cr
TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT, FALSE DESIGNATIONOFORIGIN, y>
AND UNFAIR COMPETITION c > o
0 ro ^=
Plaintiff Moet Hennessy USA Inc. ("Moet Hennessy"), by its attorneys, SteptoeM& ~~<
Johnson LLP, complains and alleges against Defendants Grands Chais de France Group, SAS c~'!
to r,
("GCF") and La MaisonDu Vigneron, SAS ("La Maison"), (collectively"Defendants") as '
follows:
NATURE OF THE DISPUTE
1. This is an action for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement and unfair
competition and for violations of the New York State common law and related causes of action
brought pursuant to Sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114 and 1125(a),
Sections 349 of the New York General Business Law, and the common law of the State of New
York. Through this action, Moet Hennessy seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from
Defendants' manufacture, importation, distribution and sale of a willful infringement of the
distinctive trademark and trade dress of the packaging of Moet Hennessy's successful new
product, Ice Imperial - the first champagne specifically developed to be served on ice.
THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Moet Hennessy is a Delaware corporation conducting business in this
judicial district at 85 10th Avenue, New York, New York. Moet Hennessy is engaged, inter alia,
in the importation, sale, distribution andmarketing in the United States, including within this
judicial district, of wine andspirits including without limitation champagne andsparkling wine
products.
3. Upon information and belief, Les Grands Chais de France is a French Societe par
Actions Simplifiee duly organizedand existingunder the laws of France with a principal place of
business at 1 Rue de la Division Leclerc, 67290 Petersbach, France. Upon information and
belief, Les Grands Chais de France manufactures Depreville Ice sparkling wine and contracts
with entities in the United States, and this judicial district, for the importation into and
distribution within the United States of Depreville Ice as well as other GCF product offerings.
4. Upon information and belief, La Maison du Vigneron is a French Societe par
Actions Simplifiee duly organized and existing under the laws of France with a principal place of
business at Route De Champagnole, 39570 Crancot, France. Upon information and belief, Les
Grands Chais de France is the parent company of La Maison du Vigneron, producer of
Depreville Ice sparkling wine.
5. Upon information and belief, La Maison du Vigneron is involved in the
manufacture and production of Depreville Ice, including in connection with the importation of
Depreville Ice into United States. The Depreville Ice label states that the product was
"elaborated by La Maison du Vigneron" and was imported by Saranty-Imports of White Plains,
New York.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This action is based on Sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1114 and 1125(a), Section 349 of theNew York General Business Law, andthecommon law
of the State of New York.
7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
Section 39 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1121, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332 and 1338(a) for
the claims arising out of the violations of Sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act; has
supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 for the claims arising out of the violation
of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law and all other claims arising under the
common law of the State of New York; and has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(b)
and 1367 for the claims under the common law of unfair competition.
8. Upon information and belief, personaljurisdiction over GCF and La Maisonis
proper in this judicial district becauseboth GCF and La Maison have transactedbusiness with
W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. and/or Saranty Imports, LLC, two related entities conducting business
at 709 Westchester Avenue, White Plains, NY 10604. Upon information and belief, W.J.
Deutsch & Sons Ltd. and/or Saranty Imports, LLC obtain the infringing Depreville product
directly from Defendants through a contractual distribution arrangement, then import the product
for Defendants and distribute the same once imported to retailers in the United States.
9. Upon information and belief, Defendants regularly transact business with
importers and distributers such as W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. and Saranty Imports, LLC for the
importation and distribution of wine and related products, including additional Depreville wine
products, into the United States.
10. A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
Venue in this Court is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Moet Hennessy and the Ice Imperial Champagne Product
11. Moet Hennessy is the leading importer and marketer of luxury wines, spirits and
champagnesin the U.S, including among others, Moet & Chandon, Dom Perignon, Krug, Veuve
Clicquot and Ruinart Champagnes.
12. Founded in the Champagne region of France in 1743 by Claude Moet, Moet &
Chandon is known as one of the premier luxury wine and champagne houses in the world. For
more than 270 years, Moet & Chandon has been recognized around the world for its fine
champagnes and unparalleled attention to detail throughout its winemaking process. Moet &
Chandon maintains the largest vineyard holdings in the Champagne region of France.
13. Moet & Chandon developed Ice Imperial, the world's first ever champagne
specifically created to be enjoyed on ice. This champagne blend was expertly developed to
intensify the taste experience.
14. A radical and unique packaging design mark and trade dress was developed to
identify the innovative Ice Imperial product and to immediately distinguish it from other wine
products in the marketplace. The Ice Imperial packaging design mark and trade dress, shown
below, features a luxurious white sleeved bottle with a color motif consisting of black, silver and
gold, including a gold label, a black tie around the neck of the bottle and a repeating silver
diamond pattern, among other design features.
.)
ti.
MOET&CHANDON
ICE I MPERIAt.
*
15. Moet Hennessy owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,916,001, for the
inherently distinctive and unique Ice Imperial packaging design mark that includes a number of
elements of the Ice Imperial packaging (the "Ice Imperial Mark"). These elements include a
white bottle, black tie, gold band and silver diamonds. The Ice Imperial Mark is valid,
subsisting, in full force and effect, and constitutes prima facie evidence of its inherent
distinctiveness. A true and correct copy of the Ice Imperial Mark registration is attached as
Exhibit A.
16. The overall impression created by the Ice Imperial mark and trade dress results
from the combination of several unique features including without limitation the white bottle,
gold, black, and silver color motif, white label with a gold border, and silver repeating diamond
pattern. The trade dress is unquestionably unique anddistinctive to Moet Hennessy for
champagnes andsparkling wines. The unique Ice Imperial trade dress is inherently distinctive,
non-functional and identifies and distinguishes Moet Hennessy as the source of the Ice Imperial
product.
17. The Ice Imperial product in its unique and distinctivepackagingdesignmark and
trade dress has been a commercial success in the United States and abroad, and Moet Hennessy
is currentlyin the midst of a broad launch of this distinctivenewproduct through wine and
spirits retail stores and boutiques throughout the country.
B. Defendants' Copying of the Ice Imperial Mark and Trade Dress
18. Upon information and belief, GCF and La Maison recently began to manufacture,
distribute, and/or arrange for distribution of a "Depreville Ice" sparkling wine product that uses a
packagingthat closely copies the Ice Imperial Mark and trade dress in an effort to capitalize on
the goodwill of Moet Hennessy's groundbreaking Ice Imperial product and its distinctive Ice
Imperial Mark and trade dress.
19. Upon information and belief, Defendants GCF and La Maison recently, through
their U.S. importers and distributors, began to import and distribute within the United States its
Depreville Ice product featuring a copy of the Ice Imperial Mark and trade dress. Upon
information and belief, Depreville Ice has only been available for purchase in the United States
for a short time.
20. The Depreville Ice product competes directly with Moet Hennessy's Ice Imperial
in the sparkling wine category and specifically in the subcategory created by Moet Hennessy of
sparkling wine products designed to be poured over ice. Upon information and belief,
Defendants' are the only other manufacturers of sparkling wine designed to be served over ice
for sale in the United States.
21. The clear intent to copy the unique and distinctive Ice Imperial Mark and trade
dress is evident from the Depreville Ice trade dress itself. As shown below, the trade dress of
Defendants' Depreville Ice product is a close copy of the federally registered Ice Imperial Mark
and the unique and highly distinctive trade dress used by Moet Hennessy for its Ice Imperial
champagne.
22. The Defendants' close copying of the many distinctive elements of the Ice
Imperial trade dress creates virtually the same overall commercial impression between the trade
dress of the Depreville Ice and Ice Imperial products. For example, both products are contained
in a white bottle, including a white foil cap. Defendants use identical coloring of white, black,
and gold throughout the Depreville Ice packaging. Both the Moet Hennessy Ice Imperial and
Depreville Ice packaging feature a black ribbon, outlined in gold, around the neck of the bottle.
The Ice Imperial label itself is white and is flanked by gold bandsa large band on the bottom
and smallerband on the top of the label. The Depreville Ice label contains the same label layout
complete with large gold band at the bottomand smaller band above. The labels on both
productsare comprisedof a white, black and gold color scheme and are placed virtually
identicallyon the respective bottles. The fonts used for the products' marks are virtually the
same and in the same color. Both product marks are followed below by a line of text in black in
a sans serif font. In addition, the Depreville Ice bottle mimics the Ice Imperial bottle's repeating
silver diamond pattern with its own repeating modified-diamond pattern on the bottle. Both
labels also contain the words "Drink On Ice" and "Demi-Sec."
23. As part of a recent new product launch at one Depreville Ice retailer, the retailer
emphasized the obvious comparisons between Ice Imperial and Depreville Ice. The "New Item
Launch" flyer states that Depreville Ice "was specifically developed to be served on ice." The
flyer also informs retailers to sell the less expensive Depreville Ice product "to the Moet Ice
customer." Not only is the Depreville Ice product an obvious copy of the Ice Imperial product
and packaging, but retailers are using the close similarity of the Ice Imperial Mark and trade
dress to promote and sell Depreville Ice as the cheaper version of Ice Imperial.
24. By and through the manufacture, importation, and distribution throughout the
United States of the Depreville Ice product bearing such a close copy of the Ice Imperial Mark
and trade dress, Defendants have caused and will continue to cause consumers to falsely believe
that Depreville Ice is Ice Imperial or comes from the same source of Ice Imperial and will
therefore damage Moet Hennessy and the extensive business and goodwill established by the
innovative Ice Imperial product and represented by the Ice Imperial Mark and Ice Imperial trade
dress.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Trademark Infringement Under Section 32 of the Lanham Act
25. Moet Hennessy hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each and every
allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 24 above.
26. Section 32(1)(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(l)(a), prohibits any person
fromusingin commerce, without the consent of the registrant, a trademarkor any reproduction,
counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation thereof in connection with the marketing, advertising,
distribution, or sale of goods or services which is likely to result in confusion, mistake, or
deception.
27. The Ice Imperial Mark is federally registered and distinctive.
28. Defendants have used a copy of the Ice Imperial Mark for their Depreville Ice
product without Moet Hennessy's consent or authorization. Defendants' use, including the
manufacture, importation, sale, and distribution of its Depreville Ice sparkling wine bearing a
simulation of the Ice Imperial Mark in interstate commerce, is likely to cause confusion and
mistake in the mind of the public, leading the public to believe that Defendants' ice sparkling
wine is the Ice Imperial sparkling wine or emanates or originates from the same source of the Ice
Imperial sparkling wine, or that Defendants' ice sparkling wine has been approved, sponsored or
otherwise associated with the source of the Ice Imperial sparkling wine.
29. Through its unauthorized use of a copy of the Ice Imperial Mark, Defendants are
unfairly benefiting from the goodwill and reputation of the Ice Imperial Mark as well as its
source Moet & Chandon. This has resulted in substantial and irreparable injury to the public and
Moet Hennessy.
30. Defendants' acts constitute trademark infringement in violation of Section 32 of
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114.
31. Defendants' acts have caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable injury to
Moet Hennessy. Moet Hennessy has no adequate remedy at law and is thus damaged in an
amount not yet determined.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
False Designations of Origin and False Descriptions and Representations
Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
32. Moet Hennessy hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each and every
allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 31 above.
33. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), prohibits, inter alia, the
use by a person of a false or misleading designation of origin or representation in connection
with the offering for sale and sale of goods which is likely to cause confusion, mistake or
deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or
which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, source, sponsorship or
approval of such goods.
34. By making unauthorized use in interstate commerce of the Ice Imperial Mark and
Ice Imperial trade dress, Defendants have used false designations of origin and false
representations in connection with the manufacture, importation, distribution, advertising,
promotion, offering for sale and/or sale of goods that are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or
deception as to the origin of Defendants' ice sparkling wine and its sponsorship, association or
approval of Defendants' ice sparkling wine by the source of the Ice Imperial sparkling wine,
Moet Hennessy, in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
35. Defendants' wrongful acts will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
10
36. Defendants' acts have caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable injury to
Moet Hennessy. Moet Hennessyhas no adequateremedy at law and is thus damagedin an
amount not yet determined.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Deceptive Acts and Practices Under
Section 349 of New York General Business Law
37. Moet Hennessy hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each and every
allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.
38. By the acts described above, Defendants have willfully engaged in deceptive acts
or practices in the conduct of business and furnishing of goods in violation of Section 349 of the
New York General Business Law.
39. Defendants' acts have caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable injury to
Moet Hennessy. Moet Hennessy has no adequate remedy at law and is thus damaged in an
amount not yet determined.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Trademark Infringement Under Common Law
40. Moet Hennessy hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each and every
allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 39 above.
41. By the acts described above, Defendants have engaged in trademark infringement
in violation of the common law of the State of New York.
42. Defendants' acts have caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable injury to
Moet Hennessy. Moet Hennessy has no adequate remedy at law and is thus damaged in an
amount not yet determined.
11
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Unfair Competition Under Common Law
43. Moet Hennessy hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each and every
allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 42 above.
44. By the acts described above, Defendants have intentionally engaged in unfair
competition in violation of the common law of the State of New York.
45. Defendants' acts have caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable injury to
Moet Hennessy. Moet Hennessy has no adequate remedy at law and is thus damaged in an
amount not yet determined.
WHEREFORE, Moet Hennessy prays:
A. For judgment that Defendants GCF and La Maison:
(i) have infringed the Ice Imperial Mark in violation of Section 32(a)
of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(a);
(ii) have infringed the Ice Imperial trade dress in violation of Section
43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125;
(iii) have engaged in deceptive acts and practices under Section 349 of
the New York General Business Law;
(iv) have engaged in trademark infringement under the common law of
the State of New York; and
(v) have engaged in unfair competition and false advertising in
violation of the common law of the State of New York.
B. That an injunction be issued enjoining and restraining Defendants GCF and La
Maison and each of their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and all those in
active concert or participation with either of them from:
(i) Using the Ice Imperial Mark or any other reproduction, counterfeit, copy
or colorable imitation of the Ice Imperial Mark on or in connection with
any goods or services;
12
(ii) Engaging in any course of conduct likely to cause confusion, deception or
mistake, or to injure Moet Hennessy's business reputation, including
through the continued importation, distribution, sale, or offering for sale of
the Depreville Ice product in its current packaging.
(iii) Using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation of the Ice Imperial Mark in connection with the promotion,
advertisement, display, sale, offer for sale, manufacture, production,
importation, circulation, or distribution of any products or their packaging;
(iv) Using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation of the Ice Imperial trade dress in connection with the promotion,
advertisement, display, sale, offer for sale, manufacture, production,
importation, circulation, or distribution of any products or their packaging;
(v) Destroying, altering, removing, or otherwise dealing with the unauthorized
products or any books or records which contain any information relating
to the importation, manufacture, production, distribution, circulation, sale,
marketing, offer for sale, advertising, promotion, rental, or display of all
unauthorized products which infringe the Ice Imperial Mark and Ice
Imperial trade dress; and
(vi) Effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or
utilizing any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise
avoiding the prohibitions set forth in subparagraphs (i) through (v).
C. For the entry of an order directing Defendants GCF and La Maison to deliver up
for destruction to Moet Hennessy all products, advertisements, promotional materials, and
packaging in their possession or under their control bearing the Ice Imperial Mark or the Ice
Imperial trade dress, or any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation
thereof, and all plates, molds, matrices and other means of production of same pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 1118.
D. For the entry of an order directing such other relief as the Court may deem
appropriate to prevent the trade and public from deriving any erroneous impression that
Defendants GCF and La Maison, or any products or associated packaging manufactured,
imported, distributed, advertised, promoted, offered for sale, sold, or otherwise put out by
13
Defendants GCF and La Maison, are authorized by Moet Hennessy or related in any way to
Moet Hennessy's products or to Moet Hennessy.
E. For an assessment of (a) damages sufferedby Moet Hennessy, trebled, (b) all
profits that Defendants GCF and La Maison have derived while using copies or infringements of
the Ice Imperial Mark andIceImperial trade dress, trebled (c) costs andattorneys' fees tothe full
extent provided for by Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1117; (d) profits, damages
and fees, to the full extent available, pursuant to Sections 349 of the New York General Business
Law, and (e) punitive damages to the full extent available under the law.
F. For costs of suit and for such other and further relief as the Court shall deem
appropriate.
Date: October 2, 2014 By:
14
J^tytO*
Michael J. Allan
William G. Pecau
Evan Glassman
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas
(212) 506-3900
(212) 506-3950
mallan@steptoe.com
wpecau@steptoe.com
eglassman@steptoe.com
^ite* frtatt* of anrer,v,
w* Wnitsto States patent anb draoemarb #fftce ^*/
Reg. No. 3,916,001
Int. CI.: 33
TRADEMARK
PRINCIPAL REGISTER
x
c
''.'SKS*
MOET HENNESSY USA, INC. (DELAWARECORPORATION)
85 IOTH AVENUE
Registered Feb. 8, 2011 newyork,ny 10011
Director of the United States latent and Irudemark Office
FOR: SPARKLING WINES, CHAMPAGNE WTNES, IN CLASS 33 (U.S. CLS. 47 AND 49).
FIRST USE 5-1-2010; IN COMMERCE 6-1-2010.
OWNER OF U.S. REG. NOS. 854,800, 2,124,249 AND OTHERS.
THECOLOR(S) WHITE, GOLD, SILVER ANDBLACK IS/ARECLAIMED ASA FEATURE
OF THE MARK.
NO CLAIMIS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "THE SHAPE OF THE BOTTLE,
EPERNAY FRANCEAND 1743", APART FROM THE MARKAS SHOWN.
THE MARK CONSISTS OF A THREE-DIMENSIONAL BOTTLE DESIGN. THE BOTTLE IS
WHITE. THERE IS A SILVER DIAMOND PATTERN AT THE BASF. OF THE BOTTLE. THE
SILVERDIAMONDS BECOMEINCREASINGLY SMALLERAS THEY GO UP THE BOTTLE,
TURNING INTO SILVER DOTS AND GRADUALLY FADING INTO SOLID WHITE. THE
FOIL ON THE TOP OF THE BOTTLE IS WHITE WITH AN EMBOSSED DIAMOND-LIKE
PATTERN. THE WORD "MOET" APPEARS VERTICALLY IN GOLD ON THE NECK OF THE
BOTTLE. ABOVE THE WORD "MOET", THERE IS A GOLD STAR. UNDERNEATH THE
WORD "MOET", THERE IS A RIBBON DESIGN IN BLACK WITH GOLD TRIM AROUND
THE NECK OF THE BOTTLE. WHERE THE RIBBON CROSSES, THERE IS A CIRCULAR
GOLD SEAL FEATURING THE WORDS "MOET & CHANDON EPERNAY FRANCE", A
STYLIZEDCROWNDESIGN, AND" 1743",ALLINBLACK. ATTHEBASEOFTHEBOTTLE,
THERE IS A RECTANGULAR WHITE LABEL WITH THE WORDS "MOET & CHANDON
ICE IMPERIAL" IN BLACK IN THE CENTER. ABOVE THE WORDS "MOET & CHANDON
ICE IMPERIAL" ON THE LABEL IS A GOLD CROWN DESIGN, AND UNDERNEATH THE
WORDS IS A GOLD STAR. THERE IS A THIN GOLD BAND AT THE TOP OF THE BOTTLE
LABEL, AND THEREISATHICK GOLD BANDATTHE BOTTOMOFTHE BOTTLELABEL.
SER. NO. 77-942,661, FILED 2-23-2010.
MATTHEW KLINE, EXAMININGATTORNEY