Company: IMG
Filing Date: 2025-07-21
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0001641172-25-020300
Chunk: 459

Company: CIMG Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-07-21
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 2
Chunk 459
---
 in the
Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County (Case No. 23CV00234) (the “Complaint”). The Complaint related to Steeped’s
claim that the Company breached a 2021 settlement agreement that resolved Steeped’s 2019 trademark infringement case against the
Company. The earlier case involved Steeped’s purported trademark protection for “steeped coffee” and related phrases. 

Steeped
alleged breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,
and fraud in the inducement of contract. Plaintiff sought a trial by jury and relief in the form of a permanent injunction for use of
“Steep Coffee” or any confusingly similar variant of “STEEPED COFFEE”; the impoundment and destruction of allegedly
violating packaging materials and/or finished goods; a final judgment for all profits derived from the Company’s allegedly unlawful
conduct, actual damages, damages to the Steeped’s reputation and goodwill among its customers and partners; and reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs. The Company answered the Complaint with a general denial and asserted twenty-five affirmative defenses.

    F-20

On
January 16, 2024, without a finding or admission of wrongdoing, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Steeped. In
exchange for mutual releases and a dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, the Company completed the payment of $500,000 on October 3, 2024.
Steeped filed a Notice of Settlement on January 30, 2024, and on April 18, 2024, the case was dismissed.

Curtin
Litigation

As previously
disclosed, on January 6, 2023, a former employee of the Company, Rosalina Curtin filed a complaint against the Company and another former
employee of the Company, Jose Ramirez, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2023-00000841-CU-WT-NC) (the
“Complaint”). The Complaint alleged that Ms. Curtin was subject to harassment by Mr. Ramirez, gender discrimination throughout
her employment, that she reported this discrimination and harassment to the Company, and that the Company retaliated against her and wrongfully
terminated her for whistleblowing and failed to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Ms. Curtin sought compensatory damages,
including loss of past, present and future