UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAKI KASTANIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

YELLOW YOLK POMPANO, LLC,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Taki Kastanis (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, alleges against 

Defendant, Yellow Yolk Pompano, LLC (“Defendant”) as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action seeks preliminary injunctive relief and damages pursuant to the Lanham 

Act, (15 U.S.C. § 1114 and 15 U.S.C. §1125 et. seq.); for trademark infringement and unfair 

competition pursuant to Florida common law. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant

from further unauthorized use of a trademark which infringes upon Plaintiff's trademark and to 

recover damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This is an action arising under the Lanham Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 

1125, and the Florida Statutes.

3. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction of this civil action pursuant to 

the provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et. seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)-(b) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff's federal trademark infringement claims arise under the 

laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining counts based 

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 1 of 12
2

on Florida law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), wherein the state law claims are so related to the 

federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common 

nucleus of operative facts.

4. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant has sufficient 

contact with this district generally and, in particular, with the events here alleged, including, but 

not limited to its business activities involving the advertising and sale of its goods and/or services 

over the Internet to the citizens of Florida, so as to subject it to both personal jurisdiction and to 

make this Court a proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391. 

5. Venue is further proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and 

1400(a) because the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district and Defendant engaged 

in infringement in this district.

THE PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is an individual residing at 1120 S. Michigan Ave, Chicago, Illinois 60605. 

Plaintiff is the owner of several famous United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark 

Registrations.

7. Yellow Yolk Pompano, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company with its 

principal place of business at 3200 East Atlantic Blvd., Pompano Beach, FL 33062.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff’s Trademarks and Associated Rights

8. Plaintiff is the owner of valid and subsisting U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 6,236,201 

(originally Reg. No. 3,347,771, which registered on December 04, 2007) on the Principal Register 

in the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the standard trademark YOLK (hereinafter 

“Plaintiff’s Standard Mark” for “café-restaurants, carry-out restaurants, restaurant services, 

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 2 of 12
3

restaurants, and take-out services,” which registered on January 05, 2021. See Exhibit A, 

Registrations.

9. Plaintiff is the owner of valid and subsisting U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 6,274,943 

(originally Reg. No. 3,347,784, which registered on December 04, 2007) on the Principal Register 

in the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the design trademark 

(hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Logo Mark”) for “café-restaurants, carry-out restaurants, restaurant 

services, restaurants, and take-out services,” which registered on February 23, 2021.

10. Plaintiff has used Plaintiff’s Standard Mark and Plaintiff’s Logo Mark (hereinafter, 

collectively “Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks”) in interstate commerce in the United States continuously 

since November 1, 2006, in connection with “café-restaurants, carry-out restaurants, restaurant 

services, restaurants, and take-out services.”

11. Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks are valid, subsisting, and in full force and effect, and 

constitute evidence of validity of the marks and of Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the marks in 

connection with the services identified in the registrations.

12. Plaintiff has spent a considerable amount of money, time, and energy with the

promotions of its services promoted and rendered under the Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks and as a 

result, a significant amount of goodwill has attached to Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks, making Plaintiff’s 

YOLK Marks a valuable and irreplaceable asset of Plaintiff’s business.

13. Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks are entitled to a broad scope of protection by virtue of 

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 3 of 12
4

Plaintiff’s continuous, exclusive, and widespread use of Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks for over fifteen 

years.

14. As a result of longstanding and extensive use in commerce and wide recognition 

among the purchasing public, Plaintiff's YOLK Marks have become distinctive as an indication of 

the source of such branded goods and services.

15. As a result of its distinctiveness and widespread use and promotion throughout the 

United States, Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks are famous trademarks within the meaning of Section 43(c) 

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

16. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff’s rights in and to Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks, upon 

information and belief, in or about September 2022, Defendant intends to open, own, and operate 

a restaurant called “Yellow Yolk” in Pompano Beach, Florida.

17. On or about May 12, 2021, Defendant, through a related entity, filed an application

with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Serial Number 90706536, to register the 

standard character Word Mark “YELLOW YOLK” in International Class 043 for “restaurant 

services; take-out restaurant services; carry-out restaurant services; mobile restaurant services; 

food catering services.” See Exhibit B attached hereto.

18. Defendant intends to operate the same kind of restaurant business that features 

breakfast dishes and caters to the same kind of consumers. See webpage at 

https://pointpubs.com/riverside-promenade-restaurant-and-retail-complex-is-getting-closer-toopening-in-pompano-beach/, visited on September 7, 2022, attached as Exhibit C.

19. Defendant’s name, Yellow Yolk (the “Infringing Mark”), is substantially similar to 

Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks.

20. Defendant improperly uses Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks. This use is such as to create a 

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 4 of 12
5

likelihood of confusion regarding the source or origin of Defendant’s services. This use falsely 

implies that the Defendant’s services are rendered with Plaintiff’s consent to and involvement 

therewith. This use also falsely implies approval, affiliation, and/or sponsorship between Plaintiff 

and Defendant, where there is none. 

21. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Mark, which fully encompass Plaintiff’s YOLK 

brand, is diluting the famous and distinctive quality of Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks and impairing 

Plaintiff’s ability to obtain contracts with third parties in the future. 

22. Defendant knowingly, willfully, and intentionally infringed Plaintiff’s YOLK 

Marks and the rights afforded by Plaintiff’s registered YOLK Marks.

23.

24. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew of Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks at the 

time or before it adopted the Infringing Mark.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

25. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been performed, 

excused, or waived.

26. Plaintiff has retained undersigned counsel (and other counsel) to represent him in 

this action and is obligated to pay such attorneys a reasonable fee for its services.

COUNT I: TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT (15 U.S.C. § 1114)

27. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 26 of this 

Complaint.

28. Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks are completely subsumed into the Defendant’s Infringing 

Mark.

29. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew of Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks at the 

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 5 of 12
6

time or before it adopted its Infringing Mark.

30. Upon information and belief, Defendant has used and is continuing to use a mark 

that is confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s federally registered YOLK Marks in connection with the 

advertising, promotion, and/or sale of services related to those of Plaintiff, without the consent of 

Plaintiff, and in a manner which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to source, 

origin, affiliation, connection, or association with Defendant.

31. As such, Defendant’s unauthorized use of the Infringing Mark constitutes 

trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114.

32. Defendant’s actions have caused Plaintiff to lose control over the reputation and 

goodwill associated with Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks.

33. Defendant’s actions have tarnished Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill associated 

with Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks.

34. Upon information and belief, by its acts, Defendant has made and will make 

substantial profits and gains to which it is not in law or equity entitled.

35. Upon information and belief, Defendant intends to continue its willfully infringing 

acts unless restrained by this court.

36. Defendant’s actions have caused irreparable injury to Plaintiff's business, 

reputation, and goodwill. 

37. Unless Defendant is enjoined from its wrongful conduct, Plaintiff will continue to 

suffer irreparable injury and harm, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT II: UNFAIR COMPETITION (15 U.S.C § 1125(a))

38. Plaintiff hereby realleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Complaint.

39. As a result of longstanding and extensive use in commerce and wide recognition 

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 6 of 12
7

among the purchasing public, Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks have become distinctive as an indication 

of the source of such branded goods and services.

40. Defendant has knowingly and willfully used its Infringing Mark that is confusingly 

similar to Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks, and, upon information and belief, is taking affirmative steps 

to increase that use dramatically in connection with restaurant services featuring breakfast foods. 

41. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Mark in connection with the abovementioned 

services is likely to cause confusion or to cause a mistake or to deceive as to affiliation, connection,

or association.

42. As such, unauthorized use of the Infringing Mark constitutes federal unfair 

competition in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 

43. Upon information and belief, by its acts, Defendant has made and will make 

substantial profits and gains to which it is not in law or equity entitled.

44. Upon information and belief, Defendant intends to continue its willfully infringing 

acts unless restrained by this court.

45. Defendant’s actions have caused irreparable injury to Plaintiff's business, 

reputation, and goodwill. 

46. Unless Defendant is enjoined from its wrongful conduct, Plaintiff will continue to 

suffer irreparable injury and harm, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT III: FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

47. Plaintiff hereby realleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 26 of this complaint, 

as if the same were herein set forth verbatim.

48. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Mark as well as association with the Plaintiff’s 

name and goodwill established over the years by Plaintiff, is intended, and is likely to confuse, 

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 7 of 12
8

mislead, or deceive consumers, the public, and the trade as to the origin, source, sponsorship, 

association, or affiliation of services in connection with the Infringing Mark, and is intended, and 

is likely to cause such parties to believe in error that the services in connection with the Infringing 

Mark has been authorized, sponsored, approved, endorsed or licensed by Plaintiff, or that 

Defendant is in some way affiliated with Plaintiff.

49. As such, Defendant’s acts constitute false designation of origin in violation of 

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)).

50. Upon information and belief, by its acts, Defendant has made and will make 

substantial profits and gains to which it is not in law or equity entitled.

51. Upon information and belief, Defendant intends to continue its willfully infringing 

acts unless restrained by this court.

52. Defendant’s actions have caused irreparable injury to Plaintiff's business, 

reputation, and goodwill. 

53. Unless Defendant is enjoined from its wrongful conduct, Plaintiff will continue to 

suffer irreparable injury and harm, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF FEDERAL DILUTION STATUTE (15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c))

54. Plaintiff hereby realleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Complaint. 

55. Plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the YOLK federal trademark registrations in the 

United States.

56. Since the introduction of Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks in 2006, Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks 

have achieved enormous and widespread public recognition and as a result have become famous 

for the goods/services covered in Plaintiff’s Registrations. 

57. Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks are famous within the meaning of Section 43(c) of the 

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 8 of 12
9

Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c)).

58. Based on the Plaintiff’s extensive sales of services, marketing, and advertising of 

Plaintiff’s Marks in the United States and abroad, Plaintiff’s Marks have become inherently 

distinctive and famous pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

59. Defendant’s commercial use of the confusingly similar Infringing Mark, as well as 

Defendant’s efforts to pass its services as being marketed, sponsored, affiliated, licensed, or 

otherwise approved by Plaintiff, is likely to dilute, actually dilutes, and will continue to dilute the 

Plaintiff’s famous and distinctive marks associated to the famous and distinctive YOLK Marks by 

tarnishment and blurring.

60. By reason of Defendant’s acts alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered and will 

continue to suffer damage and injury to its business, reputation, good will, and ability to obtain 

contracts with third parties in the future and will sustain serious loss to the distinctive quality of 

its famous YOLK Marks.

61. Unless Defendant is enjoined from its wrongful conduct, Plaintiff will continue to 

suffer irreparable injury and harm, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT V: COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

62. Plaintiff hereby realleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Complaint. 

63. Defendant’s conduct, as alleged above, causes and is likely to cause consumer 

confusion as to, and misrepresents, the origin, quality, characteristics, and source of its products 

and/or services of Plaintiff.

64. As such, Defendant’s conduct constitutes unfair competition and trademark 

infringement in violation of the common law of Florida.

65. Upon information and belief, by its acts, Defendant has made and will make 

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 9 of 12
10

substantial profits and gains to which it is not in law or equity entitled.

66. Upon information and belief, Defendant intends to continue its willfully infringing 

acts unless restrained by this court.

67. Defendant’s actions have caused irreparable injury to Plaintiff's business, 

reputation, and goodwill. 

68. Unless Defendant is enjoined from its wrongful conduct, Plaintiff will continue to 

suffer irreparable injury and harm, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT VI: COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION

69. Plaintiff hereby realleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Complaint. 

70. Defendant’s actions complained of herein, constitute unfair competition in 

violation of Florida common law, as the aforementioned acts constitute an intentional 

misappropriation of Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks, reputation, and commercial advantage in which 

Defendant has acted with bad faith.

71. Unless Defendant is enjoined from its wrongful conduct, Plaintiff will continue to 

suffer irreparable injury and harm, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Taki Kastanis, respectfully requests that the Court:

A. Declare that Defendant has willfully infringed Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks and falsely 

designated the origin of its services in violation of U.S.C. §§ 1114(a) and 1125(a) and the common 

law, and have willfully engaged in unfair competition;

B. Grant an injunction permanently enjoining and restraining the Defendant, its

agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns, and all those acting in concert or participation 

with them, from:

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 10 of 12
11

i. Manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, selling, offering for 

sale, advertising, promoting, using, or displaying restaurant services or any other product or 

services using any marks confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s YOLK Marks in the Pompano Beach 

area;

ii. Opening a restaurant in the Broward County area under the mark 

“YELLOW YOLK” or anything confusingly similar to the mark “YOLK”;

iii. Making any statement or representation whatsoever, or using any false or 

misleading descriptions or representations of fact in connection with the manufacture, production, 

distribution, circulation, sale, offering for sale, advertising, promotion, use, or display of restaurant 

services or any other products or services using any marks confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s YOLK 

Marks in the Broward County area, and

iv. Engaging in any other activity constituting infringement of Plaintiff’s 

YOLK Marks, or unfair competition with Plaintiff in the Broward County area;

C. At its election, award Plaintiff statutory damages in accordance with Section 35 of 

the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117);

D. Award Plaintiff his costs and attorneys’ fees and investigatory fees and expenses to 

the full extent provided for by Section 35 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117); and

E. Grant to Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury in this action of all issues and claims triable by right 

of jury.

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 11 of 12
12

September 7, 2022

THE BRICKELL IP GROUP, PLLC

1101 Brickell Avenue

South Tower, Suite 800

Miami FL, 33131

Tel: 305-728-8831

Fax: 305-428-2450

/s/ Richard Guerra_____________

Richard Guerra

Fla. Bar No. 689521

Email: rguerra@brickellip.com

ADVÍTAM IP, LLC 

Michele S. Katz (pro hac vice to be 

requested)

Email: mkatz@advitamip.com

150 S. Wacker Drive

Suite 2400

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Tel: 312.332.7710

Fax: 312.332.7701

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-61670-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 12 of 12