Get documents about "Dial v. Cot'n Wash et. al
Document Sample
1 Andrew F. Halaby (#017251)
ahalaby@swlaw.com
2 Matthew T. Schoonover (#028003)
mschoonover@swlaw.com
3 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
One Arizona Center
4 400 E. Van Buren
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
5 Telephone: (602) 382-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
The Dial Corporation, a Delaware No.
10 corporation,
11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900
12 v. (Jury Trial Demanded)
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 Cot’N Wash, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation; and Big 3 Packaging, LLC, a
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 New Jersey limited liability company,
L.L.P.
15
___________
Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff The Dial Corporation (“Dial”), for its complaint against defendants Cot’N
18 Wash, Inc. (“Cot’n Wash”) and Big 3 Packaging, LLC (“B3P”) (collectively,
19 “Defendants”), hereby alleges as follows:
20 THE PARTIES
21 1. Dial is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 19001
22 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, Arizona, 85255.
23 2. Upon information and belief, Cot’n Wash is a Pennsylvania corporation
24 with its principal place of business at 2 Logan Square, Suite 400, Philadelphia,
25 Pennsylvania, 19103.
26 3. Upon information and belief, B3P is a New Jersey limited liability company
27 with its principal place of business at 4201 Torresdale Avenue, Philadelphia,
28
1 Pennsylvania, 19124. Upon information and belief, the sole member of B3P is Richard A.
2 Higgs, who resides in or around Bedminster, New Jersey.
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 4. This action is brought pursuant to the patent laws of the United States, Title
5 35 of the United States Code, the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C.
6 § 1051, et seq., and the common law prohibition on unfair competition.
7 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28
8 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and (b). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Dial’s
9 related state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
10 6. Additionally, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
11 § 1332(a)(1), as this action is between citizens of different states and, on information and
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 belief, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Cot’n Wash, among other
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 reasons, because, on information and belief, Cot’n Wash, with implicit and/or apparent
L.L.P.
15 cooperation from B3P, has purposefully directed its conduct at the State of Arizona, and
___________
16 has sufficient contacts with this judicial district, including without limitation, through
17 conducting business within the State of Arizona and within this judicial district, including
18 through the sale of its products to businesses and/or consumers in Arizona via, among
19 other channels, its website. Upon information and belief, such contacts include without
20 limitation Cot’n Wash’s activities relating to the sale of its “Dropps” products. Upon
21 information and belief, such sales are substantial, continuous, and systematic.
22 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over B3P, among other reasons,
23 because, on information and belief, B3P has purposefully directed its conduct at the State
24 of Arizona, and has sufficient contacts with this judicial district, including without
25 limitation, through its participation in, assistance with, contribution to, and/or cooperation
26 with Cot’n Wash’s business activities within the State of Arizona and within this judicial
27 district, including the sale of the Dropps products identified herein, through without
28 limitation B3P’s patent license agreement with Cot’n Wash, as explained below in more
-2-
1 detail. Moreover, B3P sells products, including its “PAK-IT” products, to businesses
2 and/or consumers in Arizona via, among other channels, its website. Upon information
3 and belief, B3P’s activities described herein are substantial, continuous, and systematic.
4 9. Dial is informed and believes that at all relevant times, Defendants were
5 acting on their own behalf and/or as the agents, representatives, and/or licensees of each
6 other, or that an as yet undetermined corporate or contractual relationships existed
7 between or among Defendants, such that the acts described herein were done in the course
8 and scope of such relationships, as well as on each Defendant’s own behalf.
9 10. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) because the offer for sale and
10 sale of falsely marked products occurred in this district, the injuries Defendants have
11 caused and continue to cause by virtue of their misconduct as pled herein occurred in this
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 district, where Dial’s products are manufactured and where Dial’s marketing and
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 distribution are initiated, and all of the relevant documents and witnesses for Dial are
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 located in this district.
L.L.P.
15 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
___________
16 A. Cot’n Wash and B3P’s Relationship
17 11. U.S. Patent No. 6,136,776 (“the ‘776 Patent”), entitled “Germicidal
18 Detergent Packet,” issued on October 24, 2000. A true and correct copy of the ‘776
19 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. Dickler Chemical Laboratories, Inc. (“Dickler
20 Chemical”) was the original assignee of the ‘776 Patent.
21 12. Upon information and belief, in 2006, Cot’n Wash entered into a license
22 agreement and/or a manufacturing and supply agreement with Dickler Chemical under the
23 ‘776 Patent. Upon information and belief, in 2007, Cot’n Wash became the exclusive
24 licensee under the ‘776 Patent.
25 13. Upon information and belief, in 2007, Pak-It LLC purchased all outstanding
26 shares of Dickler Chemical, and Dickler Chemical became a wholly-owned subsidiary of
27 Pak-It LLC.
28
-3-
1 14. Upon information and belief, in 2009, 310 Holdings, Inc. acquired all
2 outstanding shares of Pak-It LLC, and Dickler Chemical remained a wholly-owned
3 subsidiary of Pak-It LLC.
4 15. Upon information and belief, in 2009, 310 Holdings changed its name to
5 JBI, Inc.
6 16. Upon information and belief, in 2012, B3P acquired substantially all of the
7 assets of Pak-It LLC and Dickler Chemical, and Dickler Chemical assigned the ‘776
8 Patent to B3P, subject to Cot’n Wash’s exclusive license, which exclusive license, upon
9 information and belief, remains in force as indicated above.
10 ///
11
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 ///
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 ///
L.L.P.
15
___________
16 ///
17
18 ///
19
20 ///
21
22 ///
23
24 ///
25
26 ///
27
28 ///
-4-
1 B. Defendants’ Products
2 17. In 2006, Cot’n Wash began selling water-soluble laundry packets under the
3 brand name “Dropps.” Cot’n Wash’s current Dropps product line includes Dropps Fresh
4 Scent, Dropps Scent + Dye Free, and Dropps Baby (“the Dropps Products”).
5 18. Upon information and belief, since at least 2009 and possibly earlier, Cot’n
6 Wash, with implicit and/or apparent cooperation from Dickler Chemical and/or B3P, has
7 marked the Dropps Products with the ‘776 Patent. Upon information and belief, Cot’n
8 Wash’s marking has been continuous, as shown by the packaging of a Dropps Fresh Scent
9 product purchased in 2012, images of which are reproduced below, with the front of the
10 packaging on the left and the back of the packaging on the right:
11
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14
L.L.P.
15
___________
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 19. As can be seen, the Dropps Fresh Scent product shown above and purchased
25 in 2012 is marked with the ‘776 Patent.
26
27
28
-5-
1 20. Moreover, Dropps Baby products currently offered for sale at
2 www.soap.com are marked with the ‘776 Patent, as shown by the product images from
3 that website, which are reproduced below, with the front of the packaging on the left and
4 the back of the packaging (enlarged, lower portion) on the right:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14
L.L.P.
15
___________
16
17 ///
18
19 ///
20
21 ///
22
23 ///
24
25 ///
26
27 ///
28
-6-
1 21. In addition, Dropps Scent + Dye Free products currently offered for sale at
2 www.soap.com are marked with the ‘776 Patent, as shown by the product images from
3 that website, which are reproduced below, with the front of the packaging on the left and
4 the back of the packaging (enlarged, lower portion) on the right:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14
L.L.P.
15
___________
16
17
22. The instances of marking shown above are representative and not
18
exhaustive.
19
23. Also, B3P sells laundry detergent products, including under the PAK-IT line
20
of products, that B3P marks on the PAK-IT products and in sales and marketing materials
21
as being covered by the claims of the ‘776 Patent. Dial is informed and believed that
22
those B3P products may also be falsely marked with the ‘776 Patent, for similar reasons
23
as those discussed below with respect to the Dropps Products, and will amend its
24
Complaint to address this issue as its investigations continue.
25
C. The Dropps Products Are Falsely Marked with the ‘776 Patent
26
24. The ‘776 Patent includes two independent claims: Claim 1 and Claim 23.
27
Both of those claims of the ‘776 Patent (as well as the twenty-one dependent claims)
28
-7-
1 require a “germicidal detergent concentrate” that comprises “about 55 wt. % to about 75
2 wt. % of at least one quaternary ammonium compound having the general structural
3 formula I:
4
5
6
7 .”
8
9 25. Based on the ingredient list included on the Dropps Fresh Scent product
10 packaging, and Plaintiff’s chemical analysis of the Dropps Fresh Scent product, the
11 Dropps Fresh Scent products do not include the claimed “germicidal detergent
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 concentrate” as set forth in, and required by, the claims of the ‘776 Patent. Thus, the
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 Dropps Fresh Scent products are not covered by the claims of the ‘776 Patent.
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 26. Additionally, based on several indicia, including the ingredient list included
L.L.P.
15 on the Dropps Scent + Dye Free and Dropps Baby packaging, and upon information and
___________
16 belief, like the Dropps Fresh Scent products, the Dropps Scent + Dye Free and Dropps
17 Baby products do not include the claimed “germicidal detergent concentrate” as set forth
18 in, and required by, the claims of the ‘776 Patent. Therefore, upon information and belief,
19 like the Dropps Fresh Scent products, the Dropps Scent + Dye Free and Dropps Baby
20 products are not covered by the claims of the ‘776 Patent.
21 D. Intent to Deceive the Public
22 27. Despite knowing that the claims of the ‘776 Patent do not cover the Dropps
23 Products, Cot’n Wash, with the implicit and/or apparent cooperation of B3P, knowingly
24 and intentionally has marked and continues to mark the Dropps Products with the ‘776
25 Patent, with the intent to deceive the public.
26 28. Specifically, several facts indicate that Cot’n Wash does not have a
27 reasonable belief that the Dropps Products are covered by the claims of the ‘776 Patent
28 and are thus properly marked.
-8-
1 29. First, upon information and belief, Cot’n Wash is fully aware of the scope of
2 the claims of the ‘776 Patent and their inapplicability to the Dropps Products through its
3 negotiations with Dickler Chemical for a license, and later an exclusive license, to the
4 ‘776 Patent, and through Cot’n Wash’s related manufacturing and supply agreement with
5 Dickler Chemical.
6 30. Second, upon information and belief, one of the co-inventors of the ‘776
7 Patent, J. Barry Ruck, is currently employed with B3P as a Senior Technical Chemist. As
8 a co-inventor, Dr. Ruck is familiar with both the invention of the ‘776 Patent and the
9 formulation of B3P’s PAK-IT products. Upon information and belief, Dr. Ruck, as an
10 experienced chemist in the field, is also aware of the formulation of Cot’n Wash’s Dropps
11 Products, which his employer B3P has licensed under the ‘776 Patent. Given those
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 factors, upon information and belief, Dr. Ruck, B3P, and Cot’n Wash are aware that the
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 Dropps Products are not covered by the claims of the ‘776 Patent.
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 31. Third, upon information and belief, the other co-inventor of the ‘776 Patent,
L.L.P.
15 Lawrence R. Dickler, has served on the Advisory Board of Pak-It LLC, which in 2007
___________
16 became the parent company of Dickler Chemical, prior to B3P’s acquisition in 2012 of
17 both Pak-It LLC and Dickler Chemical. Upon information and belief, Dr. Dickler
18 continues to have an advisory and/or other business relationship with B3P and/or Dickler
19 Chemical. As a co-inventor, Dr. Dickler is familiar with both the invention of the ‘776
20 Patent and the formulation of B3P’s PAK-IT products. Upon information and belief, Dr.
21 Dickler, as an experienced chemist in the field, is also aware of the formulation of Cot’n
22 Wash’s Dropps Products. Given those factors, upon information and belief, Dr. Dickler,
23 B3P, and Cot’n Wash are aware that the Dropps Products are not covered by the claims of
24 the ‘776 Patent.
25 32. Fourth, upon information and belief, both Cot’n Wash and B3P are fully
26 aware of the scope of the claims of the ‘776 Patent through their filing of the lawsuits
27 Cot’N Wash, Inc., et al. v. Henkel Corporation, et al., 12-650-SLR, and Cot’N Wash, Inc.,
28 et al. v. The Sun Products Corporation, 12-651-SLR, in May 2012 in the United States
-9-
1 District Court for the District of Delaware. In those suits, Cot’n Wash and B3P allege that
2 the defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,037,319 (“the ‘319 Patent”), which is the parent
3 patent to the ‘776 Patent and is also directed to detergent packets. Upon information and
4 belief, through their investigations and the preparation of the complaints in those actions,
5 Cot’n Wash and B3P were again made aware of the limited scope of the claims of the
6 ‘776 Patent and their inapplicability to the Dropps Products. Moreover, Cot’n Wash and
7 B3P are represented in the Delaware actions by experienced patent litigation counsel,
8 which again shows that they have knowledge of the limited scope of the ‘776 Patent
9 claims.
10 33. Fifth, in those Delaware complaints, Cot’n Wash and B3P allege that their
11 marking of their products, including the Dropps Products, with the ‘319 Patent put
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 defendants on notice of the ‘319 Patent. Upon information and belief, in investigating and
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 making those allegations, Cot’n Wash and B3P were again made aware of the patent
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 marking on their products, including the fact that the Dropps Products are falsely marked
L.L.P.
15 with the ‘776 Patent. Furthermore, Cot’n Wash and B3P’s allegations show that they
___________
16 have an established practice of marking their products with patents in an effort to put
17 competitors and the public on notice of their purported patent protection, and to gain a
18 competitive advantage from such marking.
19 34. Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendants intended to deceive the
20 public with their patent false marking scheme. Cot’n Wash, with the implicit and/or
21 apparent cooperation of B3P, advertises and represents its products as covered by the
22 claims of the ‘776 Patent. In addition to falsely marking the Dropps product packaging,
23 Cot’n Wash also advertises on its website that the detergent in the Dropps Products is
24 “patented”: “[t]he Dropps formula is enzyme-free, which means we’ve left out the harsh
25 cleaning agents that can cause skin irritation in favor of a patented soft-cleaning formula.”
26 35. The more Cot’n Wash advertises to the public that the Dropps Products are
27 protected by the ‘776 Patent, the more it promotes the desirability of the Dropps brand,
28
- 10 -
1 and the more it sells Dropps Products to the public, even though the ‘776 Patent marking
2 is false.
3 36. By falsely marking the Dropps Products, Cot’n Wash, with the implicit
4 and/or apparent cooperation of B3P, sought to gain a competitive advantage by deceiving
5 competitors into believing that they could not manufacture such products without
6 infringing upon Cot’n Wash’s purported patent rights.
7 37. Moreover, upon information and belief, B3P influences and/or cooperates
8 with Cot’n Wash’s misconduct alleged herein due to Cot’n Wash’s close relationship with
9 Dickler Chemical, which B3P purchased in 2012, including due to Cot’n Wash and
10 Dickler Chemical’s manufacturing and supply agreement under the ‘776 Patent.
11 38. Furthermore, the current assignee of the ‘776 Patent, B3P, has a duty to
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 ensure that its licensees, including Cot’n Wash, do not falsely mark their products with the
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 ‘776 Patent and thus deceive the public and competitors. B3P has failed to comply with
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 its duty in this case.
L.L.P.
15 E. Dial Has Suffered Competitive Injury
___________
16 39. Dial and Cot’n Wash are competitors in the market for laundry detergent
17 products, and Dial has suffered competitive injury directly and proximately caused by
18 Defendants’ false marking scheme.
19 40. Specifically, Dial manufactures and sells, among other products, laundry
20 detergent products, including Purex UltraPacks Detergent, Purex Complete 3-in-1
21 Laundry Sheets, Purex Complete 3-in-1 Spring Oasis, and Purex 3-in-1 Wash Dry Sheets
22 (“the Purex Products”). Dial sells its products through several channels, such as retailers,
23 distributors, pharmacies, drug stores, grocery stores, and Internet sales.
24 41. Upon information and belief, Cot’n Wash sells its products, including the
25 Dropps Products, in many of the same channels as Dial’s Purex Products, including
26 retailers, distributors, pharmacies, drug stores, grocery stores, and Internet sales. Also,
27 Dial and Cot’n Wash promote their products to the same potential customers, and Dial
28
- 11 -
1 and Cot’n Wash compete for the business of many of the same actual and potential
2 customers.
3 42. As a result, upon information and belief, Dial and Cot’n Wash vie for sales
4 of their products in the same market and to the same customers, and Defendants’ false
5 marking scheme has improperly upset the competitive relationship between Dial and
6 Cot’n Wash. For example, through its false marking and promotion of the ‘776 Patent,
7 Cot’n Wash attempts to cultivate a reputation in the marketplace of Cot’n Wash as an
8 innovator with products that are superior to those offered by competitors, such as Dial.
9 Defendants’ false marking scheme is therefore likely to and has the tendency to allow
10 Cot’n Wash to compete in the marketplace more effectively against Dial, to deter
11 customers from using Dial’s products, and to discourage competitors of Cot’n Wash from
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 commercializing products to compete with Cot’n Wash. Defendants’ false marking
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 scheme has caused Dial to suffer, without limitation, lost sales, loss of market share, loss
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 of business opportunities, and loss of good will, by, among other things, deterring
L.L.P.
15 customers from purchasing Dial products, negatively impacting Dial’s product offerings
___________
16 and presence at retail channels, and by generally impairing Dial’s competitive efforts.
17 COUNT I - FALSE MARKING (35 U.S.C. § 292)
18 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
19 43. Dial realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 42 as if
20 fully set forth herein.
21 44. Cot’n Wash, with implicit and/or apparent cooperation from B3P,
22 manufactures, markets, offers for sale, and sells Dropps Products.
23 45. Cot’n Wash, with implicit and/or apparent cooperation from B3P, has in the
24 past marked and presently marks the Dropps Products with the ‘776 Patent, knowing the
25 Dropps Products to be falsely marked because they do not include the claimed
26 “germicidal detergent concentrate.”
27 46. Moreover, as explained in paragraphs 27-38 above, Defendants intend to
28 deceive the public with their patent false marking scheme. Cot’n Wash, with the implicit
- 12 -
1 and/or apparent cooperation of B3P, advertises and represents its Dropps Products as
2 covered by the claims of the ‘776 Patent. In addition to falsely marking the Dropps
3 product packaging, Cot’n Wash also advertises on its website that the detergent in the
4 Dropps Products is “patented.” By falsely marking the Dropps Products, Cot’n Wash,
5 with the implicit and/or apparent cooperation of B3P, sought to gain a competitive
6 advantage by deceiving the public and competitors into believing that the Dropps Products
7 are covered by the claims of the ‘776 Patent.
8 47. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 292, Dial has suffered competitive injury directly
9 and proximately caused by Defendants’ false marking scheme. Cot’n Wash and Dial are
10 competitors in the market for laundry detergent. Defendants’ false marking scheme has
11 caused Dial to suffer, without limitation, lost sales, loss of market share, loss of business
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 opportunities, loss of good will, and/or other damages in an amount to be determined at
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 trial.
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 48. Defendants deceive and continue to deceive the public by falsely marking
L.L.P.
15 the Dropps Products with the ‘776 Patent, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by
___________
16 the Court from their fraudulent and deceptive conduct, and there is no adequate remedy at
17 law to prevent such conduct.
18 COUNT II - FALSE ADVERTISING (15 U.S.C. § 1125)
19 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
20 49. Dial realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 48 as if
21 fully set forth herein.
22 50. Cot’n Wash, with apparent and/or implicit cooperation from B3P, has made
23 and continues to make, in bad faith, false or misleading descriptions of fact about its
24 Dropps Products as described above. Cot’n Wash has and is deliberately representing its
25 Dropps Products as covered by the claims of the ‘776 Patent, despite knowing that such
26 products are not covered by the claims of the ‘776 Patent and that such comments are
27 literally false.
28
- 13 -
1 51. The marking of the Dropps Products as covered by the claims of the ‘776
2 Patent, when they are not actually covered, is a false or misleading representation of fact.
3 52. Cot’n Wash’s misrepresentations regarding the ‘776 Patent are material in
4 that they influence a consumer’s purchasing decisions. For example, among Cot’n
5 Wash’s customers are resellers. A reseller prefers a patented product because the patented
6 nature of a product would result in higher resale prices and/or a higher sales volume.
7 Moreover, Cot’n Wash’s marking of the Dropps Products with the ‘776 Patent is material
8 to the decision of consumers to buy such products, in that consumers find purportedly
9 innovative products more attractive for purchase.
10 53. Additionally, by identifying the Dropps Products as patented under the ‘776
11 Patent, Cot’n Wash suggests to consumers that Cot’n Wash is the only and exclusive
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 supplier of such types of products. Those misrepresentations have caused, or are likely to
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 cause, confusion and mistake by consumers of such products.
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 54. Defendants’ scheme to mark the Dropps Products with the ‘776 Patent when
L.L.P.
15 such products are not covered by that patent is commercial advertising or promotion that
___________
16 misrepresents the nature and characteristics of the Dropps Products.
17 55. Cot’n Wash, with the implicit and/or apparent cooperation of B3P, has
18 wrongfully and illegally advertised its patent rights that Cot’n Wash does not possess, and
19 as a result has benefitted commercially and financially while injuring the public by stifling
20 competition.
21 56. Defendants’ false marking scheme and related misrepresentations have
22 caused Dial to suffer, without limitation, lost sales, loss of market share, loss of business
23 opportunities, loss of good will, and/or other damages in an amount to be determined at
24 trial.
25 57. Defendants’ false advertising has been willful and deliberate, warranting a
26 finding that this is an exceptional case.
27
28
- 14 -
1 COUNT III - COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
2 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
3 58. Dial incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs 1 to 57 as if set
4 forth herein.
5 59. In violation of Arizona’s common law prohibitions against unfair
6 competition and for the purpose of preventing Dial from competing with Cot’n Wash,
7 Defendants have engaged in unfair competition by falsely claiming that the Dropps
8 Products are covered by the claims of the ‘776 Patent, despite knowing that the products
9 are not so covered.
10 60. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants as alleged herein, Dial has
11 suffered and will continue to suffer damage, including without limitation, lost sales, loss
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 of market share, loss of business opportunities, loss of good will, and/or other damages.
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 Moreover, by identifying the Dropps Products as patented under the ‘776 Patent, Cot’n
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 Wash suggests to consumers that Cot’n Wash is the only and exclusive supplier of such
L.L.P.
15 types of products. Those misrepresentations have caused, or are likely to cause, confusion
___________
16 and mistake by consumers of such products. Such confusion is especially harmful to Dial
17 because it competes with Cot’n Wash in the relevant market.
18 61. Defendants have committed and continue to commit such intentional,
19 willful, and malicious acts with the design of disrupting Dial’s business and sales
20 activities and reaping for themselves future economic benefit that would otherwise flow to
21 Dial. Such actions have caused and will continue to cause damage to Dial, including
22 without limitation, lost sales, loss of market share, loss of business opportunities, loss of
23 good will, and/or other damages at an amount to be determined at trial. Because
24 Defendants’ conduct is in violation of Arizona’s common law prohibition on unfair
25 competition, Dial therefore seeks from Defendants compensatory damages, punitive
26 damages, statutory or enhanced damages, costs, and any other relief this Court deems
27 appropriate.
28
- 15 -
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, Dial respectfully requests that this Court entered judgment in its
3 favor and jointly and severally against Defendants and grant the following relief:
4 A. Judgment entered in Dial’s favor and against Defendants on each Count of
5 the Complaint;
6 B. Judgment entered that Defendants falsely marked products in violation of 35
7 U.S.C. § 292;
8 C. A preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining Defendant and their
9 agents, servants, employees, distributors, licensees, partners, representatives, related
10 companies, officers, directors, assigns and attorneys and those in active concert or
11 participation with them, from and in any way, promoting, advertising, publicizing, or
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12 representing in any way that the Dropps Products are covered by the claims of the ‘776
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13 Patent;
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14 D. Award damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 292 adequate to compensate Dial
L.L.P.
15 for the competitive injury it has suffered as a result of Defendants’ false marking;
___________
16 E. Award an accounting for any falsely marked products not presented at trial
17 and an award by the Court of additional damages for any such falsely marked products;
18 F. Award Dial its actual damages and Defendants’ profits attributable to their
19 wrongful conduct pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);
20 G. Award treble damages as provided under 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
21 H. Award punitive damages for the willful and wanton nature of Defendants’
22 wrongful conduct;
23 I. Award pre-judgment interest;
24 J. Award attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
25 K. Award attorney’s fees and cost pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and any
26 other applicable laws; and
27 L. Award Dial such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
28
- 16 -
1 JURY DEMAND
2 Dial hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
3 DATED this 17th day of September, 2012.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
4
5
By: s/ Matthew T. Schoonover
6 Andrew F. Halaby
Matthew T. Schoonover
7 Attorneys for The Dial Corporation
8
9
15822382
10
11
One Ariz ona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 190 0
12
Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2 202
___________
13
LAW OFFICES
602.382 .6000
14
L.L.P.
15
___________
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 17 -
