Lago Wine Bar Lawsuit

Case: 1:18-cv-02106 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page 1 of 48 PageID #:1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
PASSON & PASSON CORP., Case No.:

Plaintiff,
vs.
3207 N. SHEFFIELD, AVE. LLC, LAURAS VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR

GRIGALIUNAS and ANDREA SOLDINI, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
AND
Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Passon & Passon Corp. (“Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned attorneys,
for their Verified Complaint against the Defendants, allege as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an action for trade dress infringement, unfair competition and other relief
arising under the trademark and service mark laws of the United States specifically, 15 U.S.C. §
1051 et seq. (hereinafter “Lanham Act”) and under the common law, as well as for civil
conspiracy, passing off, deceptive business practices, dilution, use of trade dress with intent to
deceive, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of faithless servant doctrine,
misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information, tortious interference with
prospective business relations and for an injunction arising out of Defendants’ conspiracy,
misappropriation and infringement of Plaintiff’s trade dress and confidential and proprietary
recipes, operations and business model, all of which Defendant is using to deceive the public into
believing Defendants’ restaurant is affiliated with or connected to Plaintiff’s popular, Italian
7356164.6
cicchetti-style (the Italian equivalent of “tapas”) restaurants and wine bars. Indeed, the
individual defendants, who are former employees of Plaintiff, unlawfully conspired, while
employed by Plaintiff, to steal Plaintiff’s recipes, operations and business model and other
confidential and propriety information, and to copy distinctive décor, plating presentation and
dining experience found in Plaintiff’s restaurants, all in order to unfairly compete with Plaintiff
by opening a knock-off restaurant that Defendants are actively misleading the public into
believing is connected to or affiliated with Plaintiff’s popular restaurants. In light of Defendants’
willful and unlawful conduct, Defendants’ copycat restaurant should be immediately shut down,
and all of Defendants’ ill-obtained profits should be disgorged and awarded to Plaintiff.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1338 because Plaintiff’s claims arise under the trade dress laws of the United States,
15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1338(b) and 1367 over Plaintiff’s claims that arise under the laws of the State of Illinois. This
Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties to this action because (i) Plaintiff’s claims arise
in this judicial district, and (ii) Defendants do business in this judicial district.
3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c),
and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because Plaintiff’s claims arise in this judicial district, Defendants
conduct substantial business in this judicial district as their restaurant is located within this
district, witnesses and evidence are located within this judicial district, and the acts complained
of herein have taken place in this judicial district.
2
7356164.6
THE PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Passon & Passon Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of New York with its principal place of business located at 408 W. 145th Street, LL, New
York, NY, 10031.
5. Plaintiff is the owner and operator of a family of long-established and popular
Italian restaurants and wine bars located in New York City offering cicchetti-style Italian food
and select wine and beverage items. Plaintiff’s family of restaurants include the following
establishments: 1) Aria Wine Bar Hell’s Kitchen (“Aria HK”), located at 369 West 51st Street,
New York, NY 10019; 2) Aria Wine Bar West Village (“Aria WV”), located at 117 Perry Street,
New York, NY 10014; 3) Briciola Wine Bar (“Briciola”), located at 370 West 51st Street, New
York, NY 10019; 4) Codino Wine Bar (“Codino”), located at 62 Carmine Street, New York, NY
10014; 5) Cotenna Wine Bar (“Cotenna”), located at 21 Bedford Street, New York, NY 10014;
and 6) Terra Wine Bar (“Terra”), located at 222 West Broadway, New York, NY 10013 (the
family of restaurants are collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiff’s Restaurants”).
6. Plaintiff opened its first location, Aria WV, in June of 2010 and opened Aria HK
later that year in November of 2010. Over the next several years, Plaintiff built out and opened
its remaining locations: Briciola (March of 2012); Terra (October of 2013); Cotenna (October of
2014) and Codino (October of 2017). As more fully set forth below, each of Plaintiff’s
Restaurants incorporate the same interior décor, exterior décor, table presentation, menu, and
overall dining experience (collectively referred to herein as “Restaurant Concept and Trade
Dress”).
7. Defendant 3207 N. Sheffield Ave. LLC is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of business located at 3207 N.
Sheffield Ave., Chicago, Illinois. Upon information and belief, 3207 N. Sheffield Ave. LLC is
3
7356164.6
the owner and operator of an Italian cicchetti–style restaurant and wine bar called Lago Wine
Bar (“Lago”) in Chicago, Illinois.
8. Upon information and belief, defendant Lauras Grigaliunas (“Grigaliunas”) is an
individual residing at 3200 N. Lake Shore Drive, Apt. 2501, Chicago, Illinois 60657. Grigaliunas
was employed by Plaintiff at Aria WV from the time it first opened in 2010 through April 2016.
As one of Plaintiff’s very first employees, Grigaliunas observed firsthand the success of
Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress and obtained firsthand knowledge of Plaintiff’s
replication of its Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress into all of Plaintiff’s Restaurants that were
subsequently opened. Due to his long standing employment with Plaintiff from the outset,
Grigaliunas obtained access to Plaintiff’s proprietary and confidential information about
Plaintiff’s Restaurants, including details about Plaintiff’s operations, business model, staff,
vendors, purveyors and its customers. Grigaliunas was even observed taking and writing down
measurements of the interior of Aria WV. Upon information and belief, Grigaliunas is the
individual who orchestrated the conspiracy to unfairly compete with Plaintiff by opening the
copycat restaurant Lago.
9. Upon information and belief, defendant Andrea Soldini (“Soldini”) is an
individual residing in or around the City of Chicago in the State of Illinois, whose exact address
is unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Soldini was employed by Plaintiff from 2014 to 2016.
Soldini was hired by Plaintiff to be a Sous Chef as well as to be in charge of quality control at all
of Plaintiff’s Restaurants. Specifically, Soldini would go to all of Plaintiff’s Restaurants to check
that the quality and taste of the dishes were consistent at each location. As Plaintiff’s Sous Chef,
Soldini had access to proprietary and confidential information about Plaintiff’s Restaurants,
4
7356164.6
including its confidential recipes, operations, business model, vendors and staff. Upon
information and belief, Soldini is now a Chef at the copycat restaurant Lago.
10. Defendants Grigaliunas and Soldini are collectively referred to herein as the
“Individual Defendants,” and collectively, with defendant 3207 N. Sheffield Ave. LLC are
referred to as “Defendants”.
11. The Individual Defendants are key former employees of Plaintiff who, upon
information and belief, conspired with one another to unfairly compete with Plaintiff by
replicating Plaintiff’s Restaurants, infringing upon Plaintiff’s overall Restaurant Concept and
Trade Dress, as well as misappropriating Plaintiff’s proprietary recipes, operations and business
model at Defendants’ competing restaurant Lago.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. PLAINTIFF’S RESTAURANT CONCEPT AND TRADE DRESS
12. Plaintiff owns and operates the very popular, long established, family of
restaurants in New York City including Aria WV, Aria HK, Briciola, Codino, Cotenna, and
Terra. Plaintiff’s Restaurants offer modern, Italian cicchetti-style food and select wine and
beverage items. Each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants incorporate Plaintiff’s distinctive and non-
functional Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress, as more fully described below. Images depicting
the Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress at each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants are attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
13. Plaintiff has developed a distinctive atmosphere for its dine-in customers, which
is implemented consistently in each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants (“Interior Décor”). In each of
Plaintiff’s Restaurants, Plaintiff uses white 3 x 6 inch ceramic tiles (“Subway Tiles”) for counter
tops and counter side panels, table tops and portions of interior wall panels. The incorporation of
Subway Tiles was a deliberate choice by Plaintiff. Plaintiff decided to cover its counter tops
5
7356164.6
with white Subway Tiles which are emblematic of New York City, as they first appeared in New
York City’s underground train stations in the early 1900s. The white Subway Tiles became a
distinctive element of Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress, and Plaintiff incorporated
white Subway Tiles on double-sided counters, countertops, table tops, portions of counter side
panels and wall panels, including tiled columns with mirrors, at its first location, Aria WV, and
in all of its other establishments. Exemplative images from Aria WV and Briciola are set forth
below. See also Exhibit A.
14. In addition to the Subway Tile countertops and tables, all of Plaintiff’s
Restaurants have wooden tables, which provide a rustic counterpart to the modern Subway Tile
countertops, tables and walls. An exemplative image from Cotenna is set forth below. See also
Exhibit A.
6
7356164.6
15. In each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants, Plaintiff has juxtaposed communal counters and
tables with smaller individual party tables, which adds to patrons’ overall dining experience.
Exemplative images from Aria HK and Cotenna are set forth below. See also Exhibit A.
16. At each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants, Plaintiff has chosen to incorporate exposed
brick walls throughout the interior. Exemplative images from Terra and Codino are set forth
below. See also Exhibit A.
7
7356164.6
17. The interiors of each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants also feature ceiling height wooden
shelving lined with upright wine bottles. Exemplative images from Briciola and Terra are set
forth below. See also Exhibit A.
18. In each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants, Plaintiff has built out a unique wall décor
installation, used to showcase hanging prosciutto. Exemplative images from Terra and Aria WV
are set forth below. See also Exhibit A.
8
7356164.6
19. The ceiling in each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants has exposed wood panels and beams
as well as exposed industrial elements such as vent ducts. Exemplative images from Aria HK,
Terra and Codino are set forth below. See also Exhibit A.
20. All of Plaintiff’s Restaurants also have the same bell shaped pendant lighting
fixtures. Exemplative images from Terra, Cotenna and Aria WV are set forth below. See also
Exhibit A.
9
7356164.6
21. In addition to the distinctive dining room décor, Plaintiff has developed
distinctive Interior Décor for the bathrooms which is implemented consistently in all of
Plaintiff’s Restaurants. The distinctive bathroom Interior Décor is comprised of white Subway
Tile walls and wall panels, a red door, small hexagonal floor tiles, black wall paint and a red
mechanical hand dryer. Exemplative images from Terra and Aria WV are set forth below. See
also Exhibit A.
22. Plaintiff also uses the same table settings, beverageware, plates and dishes at each
of Plaintiff’s Restaurants (“Table Presentation”). The table place-setting is comprised of a paper
print out of Plaintiff’s menu (described more fully below), a white cloth napkin with a red striped
detail wrapped around silverware and a short, faceted water glass. There are no placemats at the
table settings. Exemplative images from Codino and Briciola are set forth below. See also
Exhibit A.
10
7356164.6
23. Plaintiff serves its food in a mix of plain white plates or bowls, white plates or
bowls with a black rim, wooden boards, or earth colored clay dishes, all which, when set forth on
the Subway Tile tables and countertops, add to the urban yet rustic aesthetic of Plaintiff’s
Restaurants. Exemplative images are set forth below. See also Exhibit A.
24. Plaintiff also uses distinctive décor elements on the outside of each of Plaintiff’s
Restaurants (“Exterior Décor”). Specifically, the exterior of each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants is
comprised of glass windows which occupy virtually the entire storefront. An exemplative image
from Aria HK is set forth below. See also Exhibit A.
11
7356164.6
25. Additionally, the exteriors of Plaintiff’s Restaurants are decorated with long
bushels of branches that are wrapped with white Christmas tree lights, which, when lit, appear as
long columns and beams of light. The Exterior Décor signals to patrons that the particular
establishment belongs to Plaintiff’s family of Plaintiff’s Restaurants. Exemplative images from
Cotenna, Briciola and Terra are set forth below. See also Exhibit A.
26. The use of the white Subway Tiles, exposed industrial elements, modern light
fixtures, and the red and black bathroom motif juxtaposed against the exposed brick walls,
wooden ceiling height wine shelves, wooden tables, hanging prosciutto display and wooden
ceiling panels gives Plaintiff’s Restaurants a distinctive look and feel which features a mix of
modern, urban and rustic elements.
27. The arrangement and combination of all of the aforementioned Interior Décor,
Exterior Décor and Table Presentation elements, including the distinctive combination of colors,
is arbitrary and fanciful, distinctive, non-functional and well-recognized, and constitutes valid
trade dress.
28. Plaintiff’s Restaurants offer dine-in and take out services. For this purpose,
Plaintiff has designed a distinctive menu which is presented as part of the table setting to dine-in
12
7356164.6
customers and which is also posted on each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants’ individual websites. All of
Plaintiff’s Restaurants have virtually identical menu offerings. There have been very minimal
changes to the menu since Aria WV first opened in 2010.
29. Many of Plaintiff’s recipes, particularly those used for Plaintiff’s signature dishes
(“Plaintiff’s Signature Dishes”) are proprietary, as they were developed and created by one of
Plaintiff’s owners and Head Chef, Roberto Passon, in collaboration with Plaintiff’s long time
Head Line Cook, Gustavo Bueno. Plaintiff’s Signature Dishes which are offered on Plaintiff’s
Main Menu (as defined below in Paragraph 30) include Tortelloni d’Aragosta (lobster tortellini
in a pink vodka sauce, which Plaintiff serves with asparagus spears); Fettuccini ai Funghi
(fettuccini with wild mushrooms and truffle oil); Crostini Porchetta (toasted bread topped with
suckling pig and salsa verde); Tortelli Prosciutto e Piselli (mini tortellini in white cream sauce
with prosciutto and peas). In addition, Plaintiff also serves some of Plaintiff’s Signature Dishes
frequently as specials. Such dishes include Asparagi e Uovo (steamed white asparagus with
poached egg and prosciutto); braised rabbit with polenta; warm octopus salad and venison stew.
30. Plaintiff’s menu is broken down into categories which feature select savory
snacks, pastas, salads, side dishes, raw proteins, soups, cured meats and cheeses (“Plaintiff’s
Main Menu”), which menu items contain Italian names and English descriptions. Other than the
name of the individual restaurant, which appears in a stylized logo at the bottom right of the
menu, Plaintiff’s Main Menu is virtually identical for each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants. Plaintiff’s
Main Menu is laid out single sided in a landscape format. The menu is loosely arranged around
four columns and is broken down into eight categories. Each category has a header in Italian
(Cicchetti, Paste, Insalate, Contorni, Carpacci, Zuppe, Salumi and Formaggi) which appears in a
large stylized font. The items in each category are all the same price, and the price is listed next
13
7356164.6
to the header. Under each header, the individual items are listed, with the menu item names
appearing in a medium size stylized font and with the descriptions appearing in a smaller stylized
font below. The first column to the left lists the Cicchetti (small savory snacks). The lettering in
this section is aligned all the way to the left of the column. The top section of the second column
lists the Paste (pasta). The lettering in this section is aligned centrally. Under the Paste section
there is a box which appears as if it has been stamped on to the paper. Inside the box are the
words “Gluten Free Pasta Upon Request”. Under the box there is the list of Carpacci (raw
proteins). The lettering in this section is aligned centrally. The top section of the third column
lists the Insalate (salads). The lettering in this section is aligned centrally. Below the Insalate
section lists the Salumi (cured meats). The lettering in this section is aligned all the way to the
right side of this column. Below the Salumi to the left lists the Zuppe (soups). The lettering in
this section is aligned centrally, but the whole section is offset slightly to the left of the central
axis of the third column. The top section of the right column lists the Contorni (side dishes). The
lettering in this section is aligned all the way to the right of the column. Below the Contorni
section lists the Formaggi (cheeses). The lettering in this section is aligned all the way to the left
of the column. Just below the Salumi and Formaggi Section appears the name of the respective
restaurant in a stylized font. The restaurant name appears between filigree style design elements.
An example of Plaintiff’s Main Menu is shown below and copies of Plaintiff’s Main Menu are
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
14
7356164.6
31. In developing the contents of and the design of Plaintiff’s Main Menu, the layout,
the items, the item names and the descriptions were carefully selected and crafted by Plaintiff.
32. For each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants, the respective version of Plaintiff’s Main
Menu is printed on off-white paper and is presented to dine-in restaurant patrons along with
writing utensils. Patrons place their order by writing down or circling the items they would like
to order directly on one of the paper menus and then handing the marked-up paper menu to their
server. This style of ordering is unique amongst Italian restaurants and wine bars in the United
States and adds to patrons’ overall dining experience.
33. Plaintiff offers wine, beer and cocktails (including vintage cocktails) at each of
Plaintiff’s Restaurants. The Vini Riserva (reserved wines), which are all listed on a paper menu,
are only offered for purchase by the bottle. All other wines (which may be purchased by the
glass, a quartino, or bottle), as well as cocktails and beers are presented to patrons on small
15
7356164.6
handheld black chalkboards. Receiving and ordering from the small handheld black chalkboards
also adds to patrons’ overall dining experience.
34. Taken together, Plaintiff’s choices in Interior Décor, Exterior Décor, Table
Presentation, Plaintiff’s Main Menu, and overall provision of a distinctive dining experience
comprise Plaintiff’s arbitrary and non-functional Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress.
35. Over the years, Plaintiff has expended substantial time, money, effort and other
resources advertising, promoting, and marketing its goods and services and developing and
marketing the arbitrary and non-functional Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress. Plaintiff has
also expended substantial efforts to promote Plaintiff’s Restaurants as being a family of
restaurants emanating from one source. For example, on the homepage of each of Plaintiff’s
Restaurants’ websites, Plaintiff has provided links to each of the other restaurants. Additionally,
Plaintiff’s websites all display photographs featuring Plaintiff’s arbitrary and non-functional
Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress. Website screenshots of each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants are
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
36. Through Plaintiff’s substantial efforts, Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept and Trade
Dress has acquired substantial consumer recognition such that they function as source identifiers
of Plaintiff and undoubtedly distinguish Plaintiff’s Restaurants from other restaurants offering
similar goods and services. Consumer reviews on the website yelp.com (”Yelp”) of Plaintiff’s
Restaurants directed at the distinctive, arbitrary and non-functional design elements and
Plaintiff’s Signature Dishes which evidence that consumers recognize Plaintiff as the source of
Plaintiff’s Restaurants are attached hereto as Exhibit D.
37. In addition, Plaintiff’s Restaurants have obtained great reputations, have been
included in numerous lists for best wine bars in NYC, and have been praised by the consuming
16
7356164.6
public for their Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress. Such articles and reviews are read by locals
and tourists alike and influence consumers’ dining decisions. One popular Chicago-based
blogger said the following about Plaintiff’s Codino restaurant:
“…a kind local stopped us & insisted that we skip out on touristy
Little Italy & go to Codino, instead! THANK GOD FOR HIM. We
were seated instantly… & obsessed over this rustic & cozy gem. It
was utter perfection, delicious, & affordable…that means Mateo
scored delicious homemade Lobster Ravioli for that low of a
price…we only wish we could ship their bread to Chicago!”
Examples of Plaintiff’s reputation for its Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress are attached hereto
at Exhibit E.
B. DEFENDANTS’ CONSPIRACY AND INFRINGEMENT
38. Upon information and belief, in or about early 2016, Individual Defendants, who
at the time were still employees of Plaintiff , engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to unfairly
compete with Plaintiff and misappropriate the goodwill of Plaintiff’s Restaurants by opening a
competing restaurant, Lago, replicating Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress, and
misappropriating Plaintiff’s proprietary and confidential information, including Plaintiff’s
recipes, operations, and business model at Defendants’ copycat restaurant.
39. Upon information and belief, 3207 N. Sheffield Ave. LLC, which owns the Lago
restaurant, was incorporated on or about March 23, 2016, and Individual Defendant Grigaliunas
ceased his employment with Plaintiff shortly thereafter.
40. Upon information and belief, Grigaliunas is a member of and the registered agent
for 3207 N. Sheffield Ave. LLC and is listed as the registrant for Lago’s website domain:
www.lagowinebar.com.
17
7356164.6
41. Upon information and belief, Defendant 3270 N. Sheffield Ave. LLC and the
Individual Defendants own and are operating the restaurant Lago which is blatantly infringing on
Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress. Defendants have also misappropriated Plaintiff’s
proprietary and confidential information that the Individual Defendants gained access to during
their employment by Plaintiff at Aria WV.
42. Upon information and belief, Lago first opened in or around January, 2018.
43. Defendants have willfully duplicated all aspects of Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept
and Trade Dress, have misappropriated Plaintiff’s proprietary recipes, operations and business
model, and have even made efforts to recruit Plaintiff’s staff to work at Lago, all for the unlawful
purpose of profiting off of Plaintiff’s popularity and goodwill.
44. Defendants have replicated at Lago virtually every single design detail and
element which comprises Plaintiff’s arbitrary and non-functional Restaurant Concept and Trade
Dress. Specifically, upon information and belief, Defendants Lago restaurant features the
following elements:
A. White Subway Tiles for a double-sided countertop, counter side panels, and
interior wall panels, including columns with mirrors.
B. The juxtaposition of the same type of wooden tables with a white Subway
Tile counter.
C. The juxtaposition of communal tables with smaller individual party tables.
D. Exposed brick walls throughout the interior.
E. Ceiling height wooden shelving lined with upright wine bottles.
F. A wall décor installation showcasing hanging prosciutto (currently being
built).
18
7356164.6
G. Exposed wooden panels and beams on the ceilings.
H. Exposed duct vents on the ceiling.
I. Bell shaped pendant lighting fixtures.
J. Bathroom décor consisting of white Subway Tile wall panels on the lower
part of the wall, hexagonal floor tiles, a red and fogged-glass door with
black details, black wall paint on the upper part of the wall and a red electric
hand dryer.
K. Table settings comprised of a paper print-out of the Lago menu, white cloth
napkin with a red striped detail wrapped around silverware and a short,
faceted water glass.
L. Use of white plates, white plates with black rims, wooden boards and
earthen pots for serving food.
M. Exterior wall comprised of floor to ceiling windows (which looks identical
to Aria HK).
N. Exterior lighting décor consisting of branches wrapped in white Christmas
light which line the entire exterior of Lago.
O. Paper menus printed on off-white paper with a virtually identical layout and
design as Plaintiff’s Main Menu.
P. Presentation of Reserved Wines on a printout menu, with additional wine
and vintage cocktails presented to patrons on small black handheld
chalkboards.
Q. Providing patrons with writing utensils to be used to mark items on the
paper menus as a means to place their order.
19
7356164.6
45. Numerous patrons of Lago have commented in Yelp reviews on the décor, dining
experience and overall look and feel of Lago, all of which can be and should be attributed
directly to Plaintiff’s and/or Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress. Such reviews are
read by both locals and tourists alike and influence the dining decisions of potential consumers.
Excerpts from such reviews include:
i) “My favorite is the tiled bar and classic beer taps…The suckling pig
crostini was next level with a ton of different flavors.”
ii) “…They did a great job remodeling the space of what use to be a
barber shop… They had small chalkboards with the wine menu and
their open bar storage looks full of all sorts of wonderful things…
The menu is broken down into sections, all which have their own
prices.”
iii) “…And the ambience was spectacular, so we didn't mind the wait…
they have paper menus and they hand you a pen to circle what you
want.”
iv) “Just like Little Italy on New York's Lower East Side. White tile
bar, quality wine list, and delish small plates that deliver lots of
taste and value for the buck. And an absolutely beautiful space with
big, textured glass west-facing windows, small, intimate hanging
fixtures, exposed bricks and high ceilings.”
v) “Looks like they took it down to almost nothing and rebuilt it… First
impression when we walked in the door was it was a hip but
comfortable and warm atmosphere. Wood beams with some cool
metal work on the ceiling and this kinda wavy glass front windows
added a extra touch of atmosphere.”
The full reviews from the above patrons as well as additional reviews from Yelp and the popular
website Zagat.com are attached at Exhibit F.
46. Upon information and belief, none of these design or décor elements were present
in the original structure when Defendants took possession of the location for Lago. Rather,
Defendants completely renovated the property inside and out from floor to ceiling, including the
20
7356164.6
bathrooms, in order to deliberately build and design Lago to be a replication of Plaintiff’s
Restaurants. Images of the original structure of Lago are attached hereto as Exhibit G.
47. The charts below show the side by side images comparing examples from
Plaintiffs Restaurants on the left and Lago on the right. The images evidence Defendants’ blatant
and deliberate infringement and misappropriation of Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept and Trade
Dress. Additional images of Lago are attached hereto as Exhibit H.
Use of White Subway Tiles for Countertops and Wall Panels
Plaintiff’s Restaurants Defendants’ Lago Restaurant
21
7356164.6
Use of Wooden Tables (Communal and Individual)
22
7356164.6
Exposed Brick Walls in Interior
Ceiling Height Wooden Wine Shelving
23
7356164.6
Prosciutto Showcase Wall Installation
*Upon information and belief, the prosciutto

showcase is still being built, as depicted above.
Exposed Wooden Panels and Beams on Ceiling
24
7356164.6
Exposed Duct Vents on Ceiling
Lighting Fixtures
25
7356164.6
Bathroom Décor
26
7356164.6
Table Setting
27
7356164.6
Serving Plates and Dishes
28
7356164.6
Exterior Windows and Lighting Décor
29
7356164.6
Main Food Menu and Reserved Wine Menu
30
7356164.6
Additional Drink Menus
48. Defendants are also offering virtually the same exact menu items at Lago that are
offered at Plaintiffs Restaurants. Many of the copied items are Plaintiff’s Signature Dishes which
are associated with Plaintiff and which are part of its Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress.
49. Defendants are offering a menu which is advertised on its website and which,
upon information and belief, appears to be posted in Lago’s window (“Lago’s Main Menu”).
Screenshots and an image of Lago’s Main Menu are attached as Exhibit I. As an example of
Defendants’ blatant copying, of the 15 Paste offered on Plaintiff’s Main Menu, Defendants have
copied and are offering 12 of the same items on Lago’s Main Menu (only two of Defendants
Paste dishes do not appear on Plaintiff’s menu). The chart below shows the side by side
comparison of the menu items lifted directly from Plaintiff.
31
7356164.6
Plaintiff’s Paste Defendant’s Paste

Fettuccini ai Funghi FETTUCCINE FUNGHI
Wild Mushrooms & Truffle Oil Wild Mushrooms, Truffle Oil
Tagliatelle Bolognese TAGLIATELLE BOLOGNESE
Traditional Bolognese Sauce Traditional Bolognese Sauce
Linguine Vongole LINGUINE VONGOLE
Linguine & Clams Clams, White Wine, Parsley, Garlic
Gnocchi Sorrentina GNOCCHI SORRENTINA
Hand-Rolled Gnocchi, Tomato Sauce Homemade Gnocchi, Tomatoes, Mozzarella
Ravioli Ricotta RAVIOLI RICOTTA
Fresh Ricotta, Spinach, Parmesan Cream Brown Butter, Crispy Sage, Salty Walnuts,
Parmesan
Lasagne Bolognese LASAGNE BOLOGNESE
Traditional Meat Lasagna Traditional Meat Lasagna
Maccheroni al Tartufo MACCHERONI TARTUFO
Slow Baked Mac & Cheese Black Truffle Carpaccio Black Truffle, Mac & Cheese
Spaghetti e Polpette SPAGHETTI POLPETTE
Spaghetti & Meatballs Beef meatball, Tomatoes, Parmesan
Orecchiette Salssicia Rapini ORECCHIETTE SALCICCIA RAPINI
Italian Sausage, Garlic, Broccoli Rabe Italian Sausage, Garlic, Broccoli Rape
Tortelloni d’Aragosta TORTELLONI ARAGOSTA
Lobster Ravioli, Pink Vodka Lobster Ravioli, Vodka Sauce
Rigatoni e Gamberi RIGATONI GAMBERI
Spicy Grilled Shrimp Spicy Grilled Shrimp, Garlic, Tomatoes
Tortelli Proscuitto e Piselli TORTELLINI PROSCIUTTO E PISELLI
Prosciutto, Green Peas & Parmesan Creamy Sauce Prosciutto, Green Peas, Parmesan, Creamy Sauce
See Exhibit B and Exhibit I. Note that the order of the items on Lago’s Main Menu has been
reorganized in the above chart to demonstrate Defendants’ blatant replication of Plaintiff’s Main
Menu.
50. Just as Defendants have copied virtually all Plaintiff’s Paste items, Defendants
have similarly copied virtually all of Plaintiff’s Cicchetti, Insalate, Contorni, Carpacci, Zuppe,
Salumi and Formaggi items. To be exact, of the 73 items that Defendants offer on Defendant’s
Main Menu, 61 have been lifted directly from Plaintiff’s Main Menu, including Plaintiff’s
Signature Dishes. Defendant’s Carpacci, Salumi and Formaggi offerings are all identical to
Plaintiff’s. See Exhibit B and Exhibit I. There are 12 items that appear on Defendants’ Main
Menu that do not appear on Plaintiff’s Main Menu. However, of these 12 items, most, if not all,
32
7356164.6
are Plaintiff’s Signature Dishes or other items that Plaintiff offers as specials on alternate menus
at Plaintiff’s Restaurants.
51. Upon information and belief, Defendants are offering an alternate menu at their
restaurant (“Defendant’s Alternate Menu”), which again, is virtually identical to Plaintiff’s Main
Menu. Defendant’s Alternate Menu is attached as Exhibit J. To be exact, of the 58 items that
appear on Defendant’s Alternate Menu, 46 items have been lifted directly from Plaintiff’s Main
Menu, including Plaintiff’s Signature Dishes. See Exhibit B and Exhibit J. There are 12 items
that appear on Defendants’ Alternate Menu that do not appear on Plaintiff’s Main Menu.
However, of these 12 items, most, if not all, are Plaintiff’s Signature Dishes or other items that
Plaintiff offers as specials or on alternate menus at Plaintiff’s Restaurants.
52. By offering virtually identical menus, Defendants are attempting to recreate the
dining experience that Plaintiff is known for and which is part of Plaintiff’s overall Restaurant
Concept and Trade Dress.
53. In order to plan for and execute the menu offered on Defendant’s Main Menu and
Defendant’s Alternate Menu, Defendants have misappropriated proprietary and confidential
information which they learned while employed by Plaintiff, including Plaintiff’s recipes,
operations and business model.
C. DEFENDANTS’ FALSE AND MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS
54. Defendants are willfully, deceptively and unfairly advertising Lago as a “sister
restaurant” affiliated with and under common ownership with Plaintiff’s Restaurants, including
Plaintiff’s Aria restaurants.
55. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ employees are expressly telling patrons
that Lago is related to Plaintiff’s Restaurants. Specifically, upon information and belief, a Lago
33
7356164.6
server told one patron that the owner of Lago has 9 other restaurants in the New York area that
are “always packed”. When that same patron asked Lago’s manager to verify the server’s claim
that the owner has 9 restaurants in New York, the manager indicated that there may not be
exactly 9, but confirmed to the patron that there were several and the closest to Lago is Aria.
56. Articles and posts on widely read food-related, lifestyle and news websites
covering the opening of Lago have included language which associate Lago with Plaintiff’s
Restaurants:
i) In an article on the urbandaddy.com website titled “The Perfect

New York City Wine Bar Arrives in Lakeview”: “So here's Lago
Wine Bar, now open in Lakeview from the team behind the West
Village's Aria Wine Bar….Like its New York City sister, it takes a
classic approach to the Italian feast.”
ii) On the zagat.com website: “Set in Lakeview, this spin-off of a New

York wine bar offers a full Italian menu with craft cocktails and
vino (including small glass pours for more sampling). The intimate
trattoria space features a bar with subway tiles and a dining room
with distressed brick walls, a beamed ceiling and frosted
windows.”
iii) On the wikirealty.com website: “In less than two weeks, Lago
Wine Bar has earned a 4.5 star rating with 18 reviews on Yelp.
From our perspective as a small business, that’s a major
accomplishment and a testament to their quality of service and
product! This cozy Italian wine bar is spreading outside its New
York roots.”
Such articles are read by both locals and tourists alike and influence the dining decisions of
potential consumers. Printouts of the aforementioned articles and additional articles are attached
hereto as Exhibit K.
57. Due to Defendant’s willfully deceptive and misleading representations,
consumers are confused as to the source of Defendant’s services, as consumers have been falsely
34
7356164.6
led to believe that Defendants are affiliated, connected, or associated with Plaintiff and/or that
Plaintiff is the source of Defendant’s services.
58. All of Defendants’ aforementioned activities amount to blatant and willful unfair
competition, trade dress infringement and violation of other state and common laws.
D. BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES
59. Individual Defendant Soldini, as Plaintiff’s Sous Chef, was in a management
position at Aria WV that is comparable to a senior level executive at a corporation.
60. Individual Defendant Soldini was trained by Plaintiff’s owner and Head Chef
Roberto Passon and Head Line Cook Gustavo Bueno to carry out their culinary vision and
unique recipes.
61. Soldini had access to Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information
regarding recipes, operations, business model, books and records, budgets, staff, vendors,
suppliers and clients. Thus, Soldini was in a position of trust and confidence that makes him a
fiduciary to Plaintiff.
62. Soldini breached his fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by misappropriating, discussing
and using Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information at Lago, which he gained access to
while employed at Aria WV in a management position.
63. Soldini also breached his fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by infringing on Plaintiff’s
Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress.
COUNT I
FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, UNFAIR

COMPETITION AND TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT
UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
64. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
proceeding paragraphs of the Verified Complaint as if they were set forth in full herein.
35
7356164.6
65. Defendants’ providing restaurant services using the interior décor, exterior décor,
table presentation, food menus and drink menus and overall look and feel that is identical to
Plaintiff’s protectable, distinctive and non-functional Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress, as
described above, is likely to cause, and has already caused confusion or mistake and/or to
deceive in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)).
66. Defendants have misappropriated a valuable property right and the goodwill of
Plaintiff, are passing off their services as if they are emanating from Plaintiff, and are falsely
creating confusion and the impression in the mind of consumers that Lago is associated with,
affiliated with or sponsored or endorsed by Plaintiff, which it is not.
67. Defendants’ activities misrepresent the nature, characteristics, or qualities of
Defendants’ restaurant services and food products.
68. Defendants’ activities, as alleged herein, constitute unfair competition, false
designation of origin, trade dress infringement, and false description and representation in
violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
69. Defendants have committed such acts of false designation of origin and false
description and representation deliberately, willfully and with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s prior
use of, and rights in and to its Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress.
70. As a result of Defendants’ acts of unfair competition, Plaintiff has suffered and
will continue to suffer serious and irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at
law.
COUNT II
FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
36
7356164.6
72. Defendants’ literally false, as well as false and misleading, statements of fact
related to the alleged affiliation between Lago and Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s Restaurants, which
include, but are not limited to Defendant’s expressly advertising to consumers and widely read
media outlets that Lago and Plaintiff’s Restaurants are commonly owned constitute false
advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B)).
73. The false and misleading statements which have been made by Defendant and
which Defendant has caused to be made in interstate commercial advertisements are actually
deceiving and have the tendency to deceive potential consumers into believing that Lago is
owned by Plaintiff or that Lago is somehow affiliated with Plaintiff’s successful family of
Plaintiff’s Restaurants.
74. Defendants’ false and misleading statements are influencing and have the
potential to influence consumers’ decisions to dine at Lago.
75. Defendants’ false and misleading statements and consequential deception to its
customers and potential customers have injured Plaintiff’s commercial interest in its sales and
profits, its business, its business reputation, and its goodwill, in an amount of damages to be
determined at trial.
76. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants’ wrongful acts will continue and
Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT III
COMMON LAW TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT AND

UNFAIR COMPETITION
37
7356164.6
78. Plaintiff owns all rights, title, and interest in its Restaurant Concept and Trade
Dress, as described above, including all common law rights therein.
79. Defendants’ aforesaid acts constitute infringement of Plaintiff’s rights in its
Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress and falsely describe or represent that Defendants’ restaurant
services and food products at Lago are provided by, or sponsored by, or approved by, or licensed
by, or affiliated with or in some other way legitimately connected to Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s
Restaurants and are of the same character, nature and quality as the restaurant services and food
products provided by Plaintiff, thereby damaging Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s reputation.
80. Defendants’ consumer-oriented conduct was directed at the public, materially
misleading to the public, has affected the public interest of Illinois and has resulted in injury to
consumers in Illinois.
81. Defendants’ acts complained of hereinabove constitute acts of trade dress
infringement and unfair competition against Plaintiff under the common law of the State of
Illinois, which acts have been committed knowingly and willfully and have injured Plaintiff in its
trade and business.
82. By reason of the aforesaid acts, Defendants have caused damage to Plaintiff and
to the goodwill associated with Plaintiff and its Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress, as well as
injury to the public.
COUNT IV
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
38
7356164.6
85. While employed by Plaintiff, and with the intent of unfairly competing with
Plaintiff, Individual Defendants conspired and agreed to infringe upon Plaintiff’s Restaurant
Concept and Trade Dress, misappropriate Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information,
and to engage in other improper conduct to Plaintiff’s detriment.
86. Individual Defendants agreed to participate in this conspiracy and took steps in
furtherance of the conspiracy as described herein, including opening a competing restaurant
which is nearly identical to Plaintiff’s Restaurants, infringing on Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept
and Trade Dress, and serving food items at Lago using Plaintiff’s proprietary recipes (including
Plaintiff’s Signature Dishes).
87. Individual Defendants conduct was malicious, willful and wanton.
88. As a direct and proximate result of Individual Defendants’ participation in the
conspiracy, Plaintiff has suffered injury to its businesses.
COUNT V
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICE UNDER ILLINOIS

UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 815
ILCS §§ 510/1, ET SEQ. AND ILLINOIS CONSUMER
FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT,
815 ILCS §§ 505/1, ET SEQ.
90. Plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the rights in and to its Restaurant Concept and
Trade Dress.
91. Defendants have knowingly and willfully engaged in deceptive trade practices
within the meaning of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS §§ 510/1 et
seq. and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act 815 ILCS §§ 505/1 et
seq.
39
7356164.6
92. Defendants’ unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive trade and
business practices impact upon and have damaged the public by causing the public to be
confused or misunderstand the source, origin, or sponsorship of the Defendants’ services.
Defendants have committed these acts willfully, with intent to cause confusion, mistake, and
deception of the consuming public.
93. Defendants are misleading the public into believing that a connection exists
between the Defendants and Plaintiff and their restaurants by assuming, adopting and using
Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress with intent to deceive or mislead the public.
94. Due to Defendants unfair competition and unfair and deceptive trade and business
practices, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial damages, in an amount to
be proved at trial. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and to an award of its costs and
attorney’s fees under 815 ILCS § 510/3.
COUNT VI
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
97. Upon information and belief Defendants have been and will continue to be
unjustly enriched as a result of their unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept and
Trade Dress, thereby depriving Plaintiff of revenues they rightfully should receive by virtue of
the use of their arbitrary and non-functional trade dress.
40
7356164.6
98. By the acts described herein, Defendants have retained revenues to which they are
not equitably or legally entitled and are thereby unjustly enriched at Plaintiff’s expense, in
violation of the common law of the State of Illinois.
99. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ conduct is malicious, intentional, and
willful.
100. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff has
suffered irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT VII
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
103. As Sous Chef, Individual Defendant Soldini owed Plaintiff a fiduciary duty to act
in Plaintiff’s best interests and to exercise requisite loyalty and care in discharging such duty.
104. Through his aforementioned wrongful conduct, including acts of conspiracy, self-
dealing, misappropriation and infringement, Individual Defendant Soldini has willfully and
maliciously, and with actual intent to harm Plaintiff, violated his fiduciary obligations and duties
of loyalty and care to Plaintiff.
105. Individual Defendant Soldini’s wrongful acts in this regard constitute
transgressions of an ongoing nature, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and
unless the Individual Defendant is restrained and enjoined from further wrongful acts, Plaintiff
will suffer irreparable injury.
41
7356164.6
106. As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff has been injured and is entitled to damages in
an amount to be set forth at trial, including the disgorgement of the salaries that Soldini received
from Plaintiff, and restitution of all employment related taxes, costs and expenses in connection
with Soldini’s employment at Aria during the period he was conspiring to unlawfully compete
with Plaintiff
COUNT VIII
BREACH OF DISLOYAL SERVANT DOCTRINE
108. The Individual Defendants were all employed by Plaintiff, and during that time,
the Individual Defendants were entrusted to act in the best interest of Plaintiff in, among other
things, operating Aria WV, preparing the food items, ensuring and overseeing quality control,
overseeing and supervising vendors and inventory, employees, and customers.
109. As such, the Individual Defendants owed Plaintiff duties of loyalty and fidelity,
were prohibited from acting in a manner inconsistent with their agency or trust and were bound
to exercise the utmost good faith and loyalty in performance of their duties to Plaintiff.
110. As detailed above, in the spring of 2016, if not earlier, the Individual Defendants,
while all employed by Plaintiff at Aria WV, embarked on an elaborate and intentional scheme to
deceive the public, infringe upon Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress and
misappropriate Plaintiff’s proprietary information and otherwise engage in unfair competition by
forming and operating the competing Lago restaurant.
42
7356164.6
111. Defendants have misappropriated and converted Plaintiff’s corporate assets for
Defendants’ own benefit, including customers and goodwill, by deceiving Plaintiff’s customers
and suppliers.
112. The Individual Defendants have acted in a manner wholly inconsistent with their
employment with Plaintiff and failed to exercise the utmost good faith in the performance of
their duties. By engaging in this improper conduct, the Individual Defendants acted in a manner
directly adverse to and wholly inconsistent with their agency obligations to Plaintiff.
113. Because the Individual Defendants have acted as disloyal servants and violated
their duties to Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants must disgorge, and Plaintiff are entitled to
recover, among other things, all sums paid as compensation, including salary, from at least
March of 2016 until present.
COUNT IX
MISAPPROPRIATION OF CONFIDENTIAL AND

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
115. Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information, which are entitled to
protection, include Plaintiff’s recipes for its food items as well as information regarding
Plaintiff’s operations, business model, staff compensation, suppliers and clients
116. Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information are known only to Plaintiff
and are sufficiently secret.
117. Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information have economic value.
43
7356164.6
118. During their employment by Plaintiff at Aria WV, the Individual Defendants were
afforded access to Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information concerning, among other
things, their recipes, operations, business model, staff compensation, suppliers and clients.
119. Upon information and belief, the Individual Defendants intentionally
misappropriated Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information by disclosing it to the others,
including Defendant 3207 N. Sheffield Ave, LLC.
120. Defendants have misappropriated and are using Plaintiff’s confidential and
proprietary information for their own benefit at Lago in order to unlawfully compete with
Plaintiff.
121. As a result of the misappropriation of Plaintiff’s trade secrets and confidential and
proprietary information, Plaintiff has been injured and is entitled to damages.
122. Unless Defendants are enjoined from using Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary
information, Defendants will continue to profit from their dishonest and unlawful exploitation of
Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information, and Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed.
COUNT X
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE

BUSINESS RELATIONS
124. As set forth herein, Defendants engaged in unlawful, tortious, unreasonable, and
unjustifiable acts intended to interfere with prospective business relationships between Plaintiff
and third parties including Plaintiff’s current and future customers.
125. As set forth herein, Defendants intentionally and without justification or excuse,
interfered with Plaintiff’s potential relationships with current and future customers by
44
7356164.6
misappropriating Plaintiff’s confidential information and infringing on Plaintiff’s Restaurant
Concept in a deliberate attempt to solicit and divert customers and potential customers away
from Plaintiff, all for the purpose of causing harm to Plaintiff.
126. Defendants’ foregoing acts of tortious interference with prospective economic
advantage have caused, and continue to cause, injury and damages to Plaintiff.
COUNT XI
INJUNCTION
128. Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not enjoined from passing
off their services as if they are emanating from Plaintiff, making false statements as to the nature
of Defendants and Plaintiff’s relationship, infringing upon Plaintiff’s Restaurant Concept and
Trade Dress, misappropriating Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information, and from
continuing to steal and otherwise harm Plaintiff’s business interests.
129. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law for Defendants’ infringement,
misappropriation and their other ongoing misconduct.
130. Plaintiff is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of its claims against
Defendants.
131. Entry of an injunction will serve the public interest.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants as
follows:
1. That Defendants’ Lago Restaurant be immediately closed until such time that all
of the elements of infringing Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress is permanently removed from
45
7356164.6
Defendants’ restaurant.
2. That Defendants, and their members, officers, agents, servants, distributors,
affiliates, employees, attorneys and representatives and all those in privity or acting in concert
with Defendants, and each of them, be permanently enjoined and restrained from, directly or
indirectly:
(a) Using the Restaurant Concept and Trade Dress or any other trade dress confusingly
similar thereto, in connection with Defendants’ restaurant;
(b) Offering an identical menu items so similar to Plaintiff’s menu offerings as to be likely
cause confusion, mistake or deception;
(c) Falsely designating the origin, sponsorship, or affiliation of the Defendants’ services
in any manner including but not limited to holding Lago out to be a “sister restaurant”
or otherwise affiliated with Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s Restaurants;
(d) Otherwise competing unfairly with Plaintiff in any manner;
(e) Using any trade dress which creates a likelihood of injury to the business reputation of
Plaintiff and the goodwill associated therewith;
(f) Using any trade practices whatsoever including those complained of herein, which tend
to unfairly compete with or injure Plaintiff’s business and goodwill pertaining thereto;
and
(g) Continuing to perform in any manner whatsoever any of the acts complained of in
this Verified Complaint.
3. That Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiff compensatory damages for the
injuries sustained by Plaintiff in consequence of the unlawful acts alleged herein.
4. That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff punitive damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.
46
7356164.6
5. That Defendants be required to account for and pay over to Plaintiff all gains,
profits and advantages derived by them from the unlawful activities alleged herein.
6. That the Individual Defendants disgorge and pay to Plaintiff all sums paid to
Individual Defendants as compensation, including salary and benefits, from at least March of
2016 through their separation of employment with Plaintiff.
7. That Defendants be required to deliver for destruction all stationary, signs,
advertisements, promotional flyers, cards, brochures, menus, promotional materials,
packaging, labels and any other written materials which contain Defendants’ infringing trade
dress, together with all plates, molds, matrices and other means and materials for making or
reproducing the same.
8. That Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiff all of its litigation expenses,
including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs of this action.
9. That Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
Dated: March 22, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
Melissa A. Salimbene, Esq. s/ Nicholas G. de la Torre

(Pro Hac Vice Application to be submitted) Kevin J. McDevitt, Esq. (IL Bar # 6205086)
CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC Nicholas G. de la Torre, Esq. (IL Bar # 6269612)
One Boland Drive NEAL & MCDEVITT, LLC
West Orange, New Jersey 07052 1776 Ash Street
Telephone: (973) 325-1500 Northfield, IL 60093
Facsimile: (973) 325-1501 Main: 847.441.9100
msalimbene@csglaw.com kmcdevitt@nealmcdevitt.com
ndelatorre@nealmcdevitt.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Passon & Passon Corp.
47

Lago Wine Bar Lawsuit

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Lago Wine Bar Lawsuit

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case: 1:18-cv-02106 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/22/18 Page 1 of 48 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PASSON & PASSON CORP., Case No.:

3207 N. SHEFFIELD, AVE. LLC, LAURAS VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR

for their Verified Complaint against the Defendants, allege as follows:

misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information, tortious interference with

believing Defendants’ restaurant is affiliated with or connected to Plaintiff’s popular, Italian

believing is connected to or affiliated with Plaintiff’s popular restaurants. In light of Defendants’

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

of herein have taken place in this judicial district.

York, NY, 10031.

5. Plaintiff is the owner and operator of a family of long-established and popular

family of restaurants are collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiff’s Restaurants”).

7. Defendant 3207 N. Sheffield Ave. LLC is a limited liability company organized

Bar (“Lago”) in Chicago, Illinois.

8. Upon information and belief, defendant Lauras Grigaliunas (“Grigaliunas”) is an

Grigaliunas obtained access to Plaintiff’s proprietary and confidential information about

copycat restaurant Lago.

9. Upon information and belief, defendant Andrea Soldini (“Soldini”) is an

of Plaintiff’s Restaurants. Specifically, Soldini would go to all of Plaintiff’s Restaurants to check

model at Defendants’ competing restaurant Lago.

A. PLAINTIFF’S RESTAURANT CONCEPT AND TRADE DRESS

is implemented consistently in each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants (“Interior Décor”). In each of

below. See also Exhibit A.

16. At each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants, Plaintiff has chosen to incorporate exposed

below. See also Exhibit A.

forth below. See also Exhibit A.

are set forth below. See also Exhibit A.

of Plaintiff’s Restaurants (“Table Presentation”). The table place-setting is comprised of a paper

Restaurants (“Exterior Décor”). Specifically, the exterior of each of Plaintiff’s Restaurants is

from Aria HK is set forth below. See also Exhibit A.

establishment belongs to Plaintiff’s family of Plaintiff’s Restaurants. Exemplative images from

modern, urban and rustic elements.

changes to the menu since Aria WV first opened in 2010.

attached hereto as Exhibit B.

States and adds to patrons’ overall dining experience.

also adds to patrons’ overall dining experience.

also expended substantial efforts to promote Plaintiff’s Restaurants as being a family of

attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Plaintiff’s Restaurants are attached hereto as Exhibit D.

blogger said the following about Plaintiff’s Codino restaurant:

B. DEFENDANTS’ CONSPIRACY AND INFRINGEMENT

misappropriating Plaintiff’s proprietary and confidential information, including Plaintiff’s

recipes, operations, and business model at Defendants’ copycat restaurant.

ceased his employment with Plaintiff shortly thereafter.

their employment by Plaintiff at Aria WV.

purpose of profiting off of Plaintiff’s popularity and goodwill.

interior wall panels, including columns with mirrors.

C. The juxtaposition of communal tables with smaller individual party tables.

D. Exposed brick walls throughout the interior.

E. Ceiling height wooden shelving lined with upright wine bottles.

F. A wall décor installation showcasing hanging prosciutto (currently being

G. Exposed wooden panels and beams on the ceilings.

H. Exposed duct vents on the ceiling.

I. Bell shaped pendant lighting fixtures.

faceted water glass.

earthen pots for serving food.

M. Exterior wall comprised of floor to ceiling windows (which looks identical

N. Exterior lighting décor consisting of branches wrapped in white Christmas

light which line the entire exterior of Lago.

design as Plaintiff’s Main Menu.

P. Presentation of Reserved Wines on a printout menu, with additional wine

and vintage cocktails presented to patrons on small black handheld