crispaw v cristal dj

Document Sample
crispaw v cristal dj Powered By Docstoc
					          Case 2:13-cv-00823-NVW Document 1 Filed 04/23/13 Page 1 of 4


 1   Firm E-Mail: courtdocs@dickinsonwright.com

 2   David G. Bray (#014346)
     dbray@dickinsonwright.com
 3   DICKINSON WRIGHT/MARISCAL WEEKS
     2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 200
 4   Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2705
     Phone: (602) 285-5000
     Fax: (602) 285-5100
 5
     Attorneys for VIP Products, LLC
 6

 7                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 8                                     DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 9   VIP Products, LLC, an Arizona limited                   No.
     liability company,
10
                                                             COMPLAINT
11
                   Plaintiff,
                                                             (Declaratory Judgment)
12          v.

13   Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A., a French
     corporation,
14

15                 Defendant.

16

17
            Plaintiff, VIP Products, LLC for its complaint against defendant Champagne Louis
18
     Roederer, SA, a French corporation, by and through its undersigned counsel, Dickinson
19
     Wright/Mariscal Weeks, hereby alleges and states as follows:
20
                                                        I.
21
                                                THE PARTIES
22
            1.     Plaintiff VIP Products, LLC (“VIP” or “Plaintiff”) is an Arizona limited liability
23
     company corporation with its principal place of business at 16515 S. 40th Street, Suite 121,
24
     Phoenix, Arizona 85048.
25

26



                                                    1
          Case 2:13-cv-00823-NVW Document 1 Filed 04/23/13 Page 2 of 4


 1          2.      Upon information and belief, defendant Champagne Louis Roederer S.A.

 2   (“Roederer” or “Defendant”) a French corporation with its principal place of business at 21

 3   Boulevard Lundy, B.P. 66, Cedex, Reims, France.

 4          3.      Defendant is a citizen of a state other than Arizona, within the meaning of 28

 5   U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Defendant has caused events to occur in Maricopa County, Arizona out

 6   of which this complaint derives.

 7                                                     II.

 8                                            JURISDICTION

 9          4.      This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim for declaratory

10   judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Rule 57, Fed. R. Civ. P., as this is a case of actual

11   controversy within the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the

12   underlying claim pursuant to (a) 28 U.S.C § 1331, as it involves the right to use a trademark

13   and threatened claims under the Lanham Act.

14                                                    III.

15                                                 VENUE

16          5.      Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and (c), as Defendants

17   are subject to personal jurisdiction in this state.

18                                                    IV.

19                                            JURY DEMAND

20          6.      Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.

21                                                     V.

22                                FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

23          7.      Plaintiff is engaged primarily in the business of designing, manufacturing, and

24   marketing chew toys for dogs.

25

26



                                                       2
          Case 2:13-cv-00823-NVW Document 1 Filed 04/23/13 Page 3 of 4


 1          8.     Plaintiff sells several lines of dog chew toys, including the “Tuffy’s” line

 2   (durable sewn/soft toys), the “Mighty” line (durable toys made of a different material than the

 3   Tuffy’s line), and the “Silly Squeakers” (durable rubber squeaky novelty dog toys).

 4          9.     In approximately August of 2008 VIP introduced its “Crispaw” durable rubber

 5   squeaky novelty dog toy.

 6          10.    Plaintiff is the owner of all rights in its “Crispaw” trademark and trade dress for

 7   its durable rubber squeaky novelty dog toy.

 8          11.    Upon information and belief, Defendant is the owner and/or the licensee of

 9   several trademarks for sparkling white wine, including “Cristal” (United States Trademark

10   Reg. No. 4,104,350) and “Cristal Champagne” (United States Trademark Reg. No.

11   1,163,998). Upon information and belief, Defendant does not sell dog toys under its Cristal

12   mark; rather its trademark registrations list the goods and services sold under that mark simply

13   as “champagne.”

14          12.    VIP designed the “Crispaw” label to incorporate a few elements of the Roederer

15   trade dress; for example VIP included a gold label. On the other hand, VIP included drastic

16   differences from the Roederer marks and trade dress in the “Crispaw” label to make it clear

17   that it was a parody. For example, VIP selected the word “Crispaw” because it invokes dogs

18   and because it is clearly not “Cristal”.

19          13.    On or about April 19, 2013 Plaintiff received a certified letter from a Roederer

20   attorney based in Minneapolis, Minnesota claiming that VIP’s “Crispaw” novelty dog toy

21   infringed Defendant’s trademarks.

22

23

24

25

26



                                                     3
           Case 2:13-cv-00823-NVW Document 1 Filed 04/23/13 Page 4 of 4


 1                                                   VI.

 2                                        CLAIM FOR RELIEF

 3                                        (Declaratory Judgment)

 4           14.     Plaintiff incorporates and realleges herein by this reference Paragraphs 1

 5   through 13, inclusive, as though set forth in full herein.

 6           15.     There is an actual and justiciable controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant

 7   regarding Plaintiff’s use of its Crispaw trademark and trade dress for its novelty dog toy.

 8           16.     As a matter of law, Plaintiff’s use of its “Crispaw” name and mark does not

 9   infringe or dilute any claimed trademark rights and/or trade dress rights that Defendant may

10   claim in any trademark and/or trade dress for its “Cristal” champagne.

11           WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

12           A.      Issue a judgment declaring that Plaintiff’s use of its “Crispaw” name and mark

13   for its novelty dog toy does not infringe or dilute any trademark rights claimed by Defendant

14   in the name and mark “Cristal”;

15           B.      Issue a judgment declaring that Plaintiff’s use of its Crispaw trade dress for its

16   novelty dog toy does not infringe or dilute any rights claimed Defendant in the trade dress for

17   Cristal champagne; and

18           C.      Grant such additional or other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

19                 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23rd day of April, 2013.

20                                              DICKINSON WRIGHT/MARISCAL WEEKS
21
                                                By: s/ David G. Bray
22
                                                    David G. Bray
23                                                  2901 North Central Avenue
                                                    Suite 200
24                                                  Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2705
                                                    Attorneys for VIP Products, LLC
25   PHOENIX 53913-8 54644v1

26



                                                      4

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:4/25/2013
language:
pages:4