Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

JACK IN THE BOX INC. and 

JACK IN THE BOX EASTERN DIVISION 

L.P. 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

SAN-TEX RESTAURANTS, INC., ANIL S. 

YADAV, ATOUR EYVAZIAN, and 

VANDANA YADAV 

Defendants

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-328 

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: 

COME NOW, Plaintiffs JACK IN THE BOX INC. and JACK IN THE BOX EASTERN 

DIVISION L.P. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and file their Original Complaint against Defendants 

SAN-TEX RESTAURANTS, INC. ANIL S. YADAV, ATOUR EYVAZIAN, and VANDANA 

YADAV (collectively “Defendants”). 

PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff Jack in the Box Inc. is a Delaware Corporation registered to do business 

in Texas. The principal office of Jack in the Box Inc. is 9330 Balboa Ave., San Diego, CA 92123. 

2. Plaintiff Jack in the Box Eastern Division L.P., is a Texas Limited Partnership. The 

principal office of Jack in the Box Eastern Division L.P. is 9330 Balboa Ave., San Diego, CA 

92123. 

3. Defendant San-Tex Restaurants, Inc. (“San-Tex”) is a Texas corporation whose 

address is 21734 Provincial Road, Suite 250, Katy, TX 77479. San-Tex may be served with 

process through its registered agent, Atour Eyvazian at 1614 Talcott Lane, Sugar Land TX, 77479. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 2

Plaintiffs request personal service of citation upon Defendant San-Tex through its registered agent 

at the registered agent’s address. 

4. Defendant Anil S. Yadav (“Anil S. Yadav”) is an individual whose address is 3550 

Mowry Avenue, Suite 301, Freemont, CA 94538. Anil Yadav may be served at this address or at 

his offices located at 21734 Provincial Boulevard, Suite 250, Katy, TX 77450. Plaintiffs request 

personal service upon Anil Yadav at either address or where he may otherwise be found. 

5. Defendant Atour Eyvazian (“Eyvazian”) is an individual whose address is 21734 

Provincial Boulevard, Suite 250, Katy, TX 77450. Eyvazian may be served at this address or at 

his offices located at 21734 Provincial Boulevard, Suite 250, Katy, TX 77450. Plaintiffs request 

personal service upon Eyvazian at either address or where he may otherwise be found. 

6. Defendant Vandana Yadav (“Vandana Yadav”) is an individual whose address is 

3579 Little Valley Rd., Sunol, CA 94586. Vandana Yadav may be served at this address or at her 

offices located at 3579 Little Valley Rd., Sunol, CA 94586. Plaintiffs request personal service 

upon Vandana Yadav at either address or where she may otherwise be found. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7. This is an action for infringement arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, 

et. seq. Accordingly, this Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338 and supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas state law 

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

8. All of the JACK IN THE BOX restaurants that are the subject of this lawsuit are 

operated by San-Tex and are located within the Western District of Texas. San-Tex has its 

principal place of business in the State of Texas. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 3

9. Defendant Eyvazian is a principal owner and directs the operations of San-Tex’s 

JACK IN THE BOX restaurants in the Western District of Texas which are the subject of this suit. 

Eyvazian resides in the State of Texas. 

10. Defendants Atour Eyvazian and Anil S. Yadav entered into franchise agreements 

with Jack in the Box, Inc. and each agreed to all terms of several Jack in the Box franchise 

agreements. Each such francise agreement (referred to herein as “Franchise Agreement”) provides 

in part “JIB [Jack-In-The-Box] may file any suit against Franchisee, arising out of this Agreement 

or otherwise, in any federal or state court within the judicial district... where Franchisee resides, 

or where the Franchise Restaurant is or was located, or where the claim arose; and Franchisee 

hereby consents to and waives all questions of personal jurisdiction and venue for the purpose of 

carrying out this provision.” 

11. San Tex Inc.’s breaches of the subject Franchise Agreements, and trademark 

infringements, misappropriation of Jack in the Box Inc.’s intellectual property, and trespass of 

Jack in the Box Eastern Division L.P real property have occurred and are occurring at JACK IN 

THE BOX restaurants located within the Western District of Texas. 

12. All or a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this claim have occurred and 

will continue to occur in the Western District of Texas. 

13. The JACK IN THE BOX restaurants that are the subject matter of this lawsuit are 

located within the Western District of Texas. 

14. This Court has general and specific jurisdiction over the Defendants. 

15. Specifically, Defendants met with representatives of Jack in the Box Inc. multiple 

times in San Antonio, Texas from October 2016 to February 2020 to discuss operations of the 48 

JACK IN THE BOX restaurant locations operated by San-Tex in the San Antonio market. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 4

16. Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) 

and (c) because the Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court in this judicial district. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. The JACK IN THE BOX Franchise System. 

17. Jack in the Box Inc. operates and franchises JACK IN THE BOX restaurants, one 

of the nation's largest restaurant chains. 

18. There are over 2200 franchised and company-owned restaurants in the JACK IN 

THE BOX system. 

19. Jack in the Box Eastern Division L.P owns and/or leases hundreds of real estate 

sites for JACK IN THE BOX restaurants, including the sites at issue in this case. 

B. Jack in the Box Inc. Owns and Licenses JACK IN THE BOX Trademarks. 

20. Jack in the Box Inc. owns the federally registered trademark JACK IN THE BOX 

and certain other service marks, trademarks, names, logos and commercial symbols. 

21. Jack in the Box Inc. owns the following federal trademark registrations, among 

others: 

MARK REG NO REG DATE GOODS 

3783515 5/4/2010 Chicken breast 

strips; [fish and 

chips;] prepared 

entrees consisting 

primarily of 

teriyaki flavored 

chicken and 

vegetables; 

sandwiches, 

namely, 

hamburger, 

chicken, sausage, 

fish; breakfast 

burritos; tacos; 

milk shakes; 

sandwiches; snack 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 4 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 5

cakes; cheesecake; 

restaurant services 

JACK IN THE BOX (TYPED 

DRAWING) 

1957318 11/28/1995 Onion rings, 

French fries, nandairy creamer, 

milk, guacamole, 

jelly, garden salads, 

pickles, meat, 

poultry; burritos, 

cakes, ketchup, 

cheesecake, coffee, 

egg rolls [taquitos,] 

sandwiches 

[turnovers, 

pastries], sugar, 

seasonings, 

pancake syrup, 

mustard, pancakes, 

salsa, [beef gyros,’ 

salad dressings, 

mayonnaise, 

prepared meals and 

sauces; soft drinks 

[and fruit juices 

1806576 8/31/1993 Restaurant services 

JACK IN THE BOX 841334 12/26/1967 Frozen food 

products, namely, 

hamburger patties, 

tacos, chicken 

[shrimp] onion 

rings [and apple 

turnovers]; [and] 

hamburger sauce 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 5 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 6

[shrimp sauce] and 

taco sauce 

JACK IN THE BOX 1108721 10/3/61 Restaurant services 

JACK IN THE BOX 0848246 4/30/1968 Syrups for making 

soft drinks 

5917007 11/19/2019 Restaurant services 

22. These trademark registrations are on the Principal Register of the United States 

Trademark Office. These registered trademarks are sometimes referred to herein as the “Marks.” 

They give Jack in the Box Inc. the statutory prima facie exclusive right to use each of the Marks 

for each registration’s specified goods and services in the United States. 

C. Jack in the Box Inc. Maintains JACK IN THE BOX Restaurant Quality Control. 

23. Jack in the Box Inc. strives to ensure that the food its restaurants and its franchisees’ 

restaurants serve is high quality and safe food. 

24. Jack in the Box Inc. maintains a comprehensive system that monitors the quality of 

foods and food products received from third parties as well as the facilities that produce the food. 

25. Jack in the Box Inc. maintains a comprehensive system that monitors the 

preparation and quality of foods served by its and its franchisee’s restaurants. 

26. Jack in the Box Inc.’s food-quality and safety program has been recognized by third 

parties as a superior quality and safety program. 

27. Jack in the Box Inc. maintains a nationally recognized food-safety training and 

certification program administered in partnership with the National Restaurant Association. 

IP 1111 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 6 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 7

28. JACK IN THE BOX restaurant managers and grill employees are expected by Jack 

in the Box Inc to receive special grill certification training and to be re-certified annually. 

29. Jack in the Box Inc. has expended time, effort and money to develop a distinctive 

JACK IN THE BOX restaurant format and operating system utilizing specialized and unique 

techniques, knowledge, expertise, skill and proprietary information. 

30. The JACK IN THE BOX restaurant format and operating system includes but is 

not limited to restaurant operating and management systems and standards; specifications and 

procedures for the purchase, preparation and sale of JACK IN THE BOX food, beverages and 

other products; and a distinctive JACK IN THE BOX building design, decor and color scheme (all 

collectively, the "System"). 

31. The System includes, among other things, the following elements: 

a. know-how, specifications, methods and procedures for the content, 

preparation, marketing and sale of food and beverages, which are described 

in operating manuals for JACK-IN-THE-BOX restaurants and in other 

written materials; 

b. plans and specifications for distinctive, standardized premises and interior 

and exterior formats, styles, designs, decors, fixtures, equipment, layouts 

and signs which are described in operating manuals for JACK IN THE BOX 

restaurants and in other written materials; and 

c. a public image that each JACK IN THE BOX restaurant is a unit in an 

established quick-service restaurant system, and that all JACK IN THE 

BOX restaurants are operated with uniform high standards for product 

quality and service and aesthetic effect of the restaurant premises. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 7 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 8

32. Jack in the Box Inc. grants Franchise Agreements to operate JACK IN THE BOX 

restaurants using the System and the Marks pursuant to the terms of the JACK-IN-THE-BOX 

Franchise Agreements. 

33. Each Jack in the Box Inc. JACK IN THE BOX Franchise Agreement contains a 

license to the Franchise Agreement’s franchisee permitting the franchisee use of the JACK IN 

THE BOX Marks and the System, but only insofar as the franchisee remains in full compliance 

with all requirements of the Franchise Agreement. 

D. Defendants Entered Into Franchise Agreements, Leases, and Other Agreements with 

Plaintiffs for Operation of a Number of Jack in the Box Franchises 

34. On or about August 23, 2010, Defendants Atour Eyvazian and Anil S. Yadav 

entered into Franchise Agreements with Plaintiff Jack in the Box, Inc. and agreed to all terms of 

said Franchise Agreements including the terms referenced above, in connection with 49 restaurant 

locations in Texas.1

 

35. These Franchise Agreements were contemporaneously assigned to Defendant SanTex through an Assignment and Agreement executed August 23, 2010.2

 

36. Defendant San-Tex contemporaneously entered into a lease agreement with 

Plaintiff Jack in the Box Eastern Division L.P. for each of the 49 franchise locations on August 

23, 2010. Each such lease agreement is a “Lease Agreement.” 

37. In all of the Lease Agreements, San-Tex agreed to use and occupy the respective 

leased premises solely for the operation of a properly franchised JACK IN THE BOX restaurant 

and only in strict conformance to the standards established by both Jack in the Box, Inc. and Jack 

in the Box Eastern Division L.P. 

 

1 See Exemplar Jack in the Box Restaurant Franchise Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A; see also Chart of 

Franchise Locations, attached hereto as Exhibit B. All of the Franchise Agreements are identical except for the listing 

of the restaurant location, restaurant number and termination date. 

2 See Exemplar of Assignment and Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 8 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 9

38. In 2011, Atour Eyvazian requested Jack in the Box, Inc. to consent to the transfer 

of his ten percent (10%) partnership interest in San-Tex to Defendant Vandana Yadav. 

39. Through execution of an Assumption and Consent to Assumption of Franchise 

Agreement in April 20113

 and an Assumption and Consent to Assumption of Franchise Lease 

Agreement in May 20114, Defendant Vandana Yadav assumed all obligations of the “Tenant” 

under the leases and agreed to be bound by all of the terms and provisions of the Lease Agreements. 

40. Vandana Yadav also agreed to be bound by all the terms and provisions of the 

Franchise Agreements and agreed to be jointly and severally liable and responsible for 

performance of all of San-Tex’s obligations under the Franchise Agreements and leases. 

41. Defendants San-Tex, Atour Eyvazian, Anil S. Yadav and Vandana Yadav are 

jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for all of San Tex Inc.’s obligations to Plaintiffs claimed 

in this suit. 

E. San-Tex’s Restaurants’ Operational and Financial Deficiencies. 

42. In 2017, Jack in the Box, Inc. advised San-Tex of operational deficiencies with the 

following 49 San-Tex locations. 

Loc. No. Street City Street Zip 

805 303 San Pedro Ave San Antonio TX 78212 

806 742 Sw Military Dr San Antonio TX 78221 

807 3315 San Pedro Ave San Antonio TX 78212 

808 5423 Evers Rd San Antonio TX 78238 

809 4319 Vance Jackson Rd San Antonio TX 78230 

814 502 N New Braunfels Ave San Antonio TX 78202 

817 6811 W Military Dr San Antonio TX 78227 

819 7206 Blanco Rd San Antonio TX 78216 

822 1331 Sw Loop 410 San Antonio TX 78227 

827 1260 S Seguin Ave New Braunfels TX 78202 

829 118 N General Mcmullen Dr San Antonio TX 78237 

830 1070 E Court St Seguin TX 78155 

 

3 See Exemplar of Assumption and Consent to Assumption of Franchise Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D. 4 See Exemplar of Assumption and Consent to Assumption of Franchise Lease Agreement, attached hereto as 

Exhibit E. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 9 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 10

847 5311 Rigsby Ave San Antonio TX 78222 

851 500 Sidney Baker St Kerrville TX 78028 

853 2465 Babcock Rd San Antonio TX 78229 

854 4626 Fredericksburg Rd San Antonio TX 78201 

855 9330 Wurzbach Rd San Antonio TX 78240 

856 1619 Bandera Rd San Antonio TX 78228 

857 2209 Sw Military Dr San Antonio TX 78224 

858 1818 N Foster Rd San Antonio TX 78244 

859 11615 NIH 35 San Antonio TX 78233 

861 1810 W IH 10 Seguin TX 78155 

868 7720 Fm 78 San Antonio TX 78244 

870 15037 Nacogdoches Rd San Antonio TX 78247 

871 10683 Huebner Rd Ste 101 San Antonio TX 78240 

900 5850 Culebra Rd San Antonio TX 78228 

903 3706 S Zarzamora St San Antonio TX 78225 

908 3523 Se Military Dr San Antonio TX 78223 

913 2100 Culebra Rd San Antonio TX 78228 

914 523 Fair Ave San Antonio TX 78223 

915 3702 Sw Military Dr San Antonio TX 78211 

923 6405 Nw Loop 410 San Antonio TX 78238 

926 2235 Ne Loop 410 San Antonio TX 78217 

928 2299 Nw Military Hwy Castle Hills TX 78213 

930 11729 Bandera Rd San Antonio TX 78250 

932 801 E Main St Uvalde TX 78801 

933 4606 Rittiman Rd San Antonio TX 78218 

934 2311 Fredericksburg Rd San Antonio TX 78201 

935 7150 San Pedro Ave San Antonio TX 78216 

936 903 Probandt St San Antonio TX 78204 

940 718 S Zarzamora St San Antonio TX 78207 

941 8558 Huebner Rd Ste 102 Bldg 1 San Antonio TX 78240 

944 1214 W Old Us Highway 90 San Antonio TX 78227 

947 100 Braddie Dr Del Rio TX 78840 

950 12503 Sw Loop 410 San Antonio TX 78224 

4719 506 New Valley Hi Dr San Antonio TX 78227 

4723 21034 Us Highway 281 N San Antonio TX 78258 

4772 5509 Roosevelt Ave San Antonio TX 78214 

4773 11211 Potranco Rd San Antonio TX 78253 

43. On or about July 12, 2017, Jack in the Box, Inc. sent San-Tex written pre-default 

notices which outlined specific problems and a plan of action to remedy them.5

 

5 See Pre-Default Letter dated July 12, 2017, attached hereto as Exhibit F. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 10 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 11

44. In 2018, Jack in the Box, Inc. advised San-Tex of continued material operational 

deficiencies with the 49 San-Tex locations. 

45. In 2019, Jack in the Box, Inc. again advised San-Tex of continued operational 

deficiencies with the 49 San-Tex locations. 

46. On or about February 14, 2019, Jack in the Box, Inc. sent San-Tex written predefault notices which outlined specific problems and a plan of action to remedy them.6

 

47. Jack in the Box Inc. informed San-Tex in 2017-2019 that San-Tex’s JACK IN THE 

BOX restaurants had material deficiencies that were breaches of San-Tex’s Franchise Agreements. 

48. Specifically, Jack in the Box Inc. informed San-Tex in some or all of these letters 

of San-Tex’s JACK IN THE BOX restaurant deficiencies including, but not limited to the 

following: no working HVAC in 28 of the restaurants (one restaurant was shut down by OSHA 

due to extreme heat and danger to employees and guests); major exterior and parking lot damage, 

including graffiti on exterior, excessive pot holes in parking lot, exterior lights out; kitchen 

equipment not working or missing, including holding cabinets, grills, fryers and oil filtering 

systems; walk-in coolers broken, which creates a food safety danger; ice machines not working; 

water leakage apparent in multiple restaurants; broken kitchen exhaust, resulting in excess smoke; 

and two of the restaurants are the subject of multiple OSHA violations that pose a risk to the health 

and safety of the employees. 

49. Through these 2017-19 letters, and other correspondence, San-Texas was given 

numerous notices of and opportunities to correct the San-Tex JACK IN THE BOX restaurant 

deficiencies. 

50. San-Tex has not cured the restaurant deficiencies described in Jack in the Box Inc.’s 

deficiency letter to San-Tex on or about July 12, 2017. 

 

6 See Pre-Default Letter dated February 14, 2019, attached hereto as Exhibit G. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 11 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 12

51. San-Tex has not cured the restaurant deficiencies described in Jack in the Box Inc.’s 

deficiency letter to San-Tex on or about February 14, 2019. 

52. After San-Tex’s failure to cure the deficiencies outlined in the written pre-default 

notices on or about June 11, 2019, Jack in the Box, Inc. sent San-Tex a written Notice of Default 

of Franchise Agreements for Operational Issues (the “Notice of Default”).7

53. The Notice of Default provided formal notice of San-Tex’s default of its obligations 

under the terms of San-Tex’s Franchise Agreements and its leases for all 49 JACK IN THE BOX 

restaurant locations operated by San-Tex . 

54. The Notice of Default also outlined the history of Jack in the Box, Inc’s extensive 

efforts to work with San-Tex to remedy the issues:8 

 

7 See Notice of Default Letter dated June 11, 2019, attached hereto as Exhibit H. 8 See id. 

• October 18, 2016: JIB sent Mr. Eyvazian and San-Tex Restaurants Inc. a Demand 

for Improvement Letter that outlined, in detail, JIB's concerns about operational 

and financial trends in the Restaurants. That Letter demanded that you correct the 

numerous operational deficiencies or JIB would issue a formal default notice. 

• July 2017: JIB's operational re-inspection revealed that you made some minor 

improvements, but several areas of concern remained. 

• July 12, 2017: JIB sent a follow up letter to Mr. Eyvazian, which specifical ly outlined 

the plan of action to remedy the remaining issues. The letter gave you a deadline 

of August 15, 2017 by which to cure. 

• December 5, 2017: JIB sent an email to Mr. Eyvazian expressing concern with the 

condition of the Restaurants in the San Antonio market. The email outlined specific 

issues that were required to be addressed immediately. 

• January 30, 2018: JIB sent a Notice of Default to Mr. Eyvazian, which referenced 

the October 2016 letter and detailed what must be cured in order to avoid 

termination of your Franchise Agreements. 

• June 14, 2018: In order to measure progress, JIB set operational goals for the 

Restaurants, as several issues remained. 

• October 2018 - November 2018: Visits to individual Restaurants in the market 

revealed food safety issues, equipment failures, and operational failures. JIB sent 

multiple emails to Mr. Yadav requesting immediate correction action. 

• December 21 , 2018: JIB sent Mr. Yadav an email which outlined observations 

from the Franchise Business Consultant's ("FBC's") recent visit to the market. The 

email detailed issues with lighting, equipment and operations, and demanded 

immediate corrective action. 

• January 18, 2019: JIB sent an email to Mr. Yadav concerning a Restaurant in the 

San Antonio market that failed five (5) Health Department Inspections in a row 

between October 16, 2018 and January 8, 2019. The email demanded immediate 

corrective action. 

• February 14, 2019: JIB issued a pre-default letter to Mr. Yadav, which provided 

you 90 days from the date of the letter to get all equipment, facilities, HVAC, 

refrigeration, lighting, building and landscape to JIB standards, and 90 days to get 

the operational metrics within JI B's standards. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 12 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 13

55. The Notice of Default demanded cure of the operational deficiencies described in 

the written corrrespondence by August 1, 2019. 

56. San-Tex did not timely cure the defaults and deficiencies delineated in the Notice 

of Default by August 1, 2019. 

57. Due to San-Tex’s failure to timely cure the operational deficiencies described in 

the Notice of Default, on August 8, 2019, Jack in the Box, Inc. issued a written Notice of 

Termination of Franchise Agreements and Grant of Temporary License (the “Notice of 

Termination”).9

 

58. The Notice of Termination advised San-Tex that the operational deficiencies 

outlined in the Notice of Default were not timely cured. 

59. Since the Notice of Termination, San-Tex’s performance has continued to fail to 

satisfy the required standards of performance. 

60. Additionally, most of the defaults and deficiencies in San-Tex’s JACK IN THE 

BOX restaurants delineated in the Notice of Default still exist as of the filing of this pleading. 

61. The following photographs were taken in November 2019, and accurately reflect 

conditions found at location J871: 

 

9 See Notice of Termination dated August 8, 2019, attached hereto as Exhibit I. Because San-Tex failed to agree in 

writing to the conditions placed on the Temporary License offered, the Temporary License never became effective. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 13 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 14

62. The following photographs were taken in November 2019, and accurately reflect 

conditions found at location J855: 

63. The following photographs were taken in November 2019, and accurately reflect 

conditions found at location J819: 

64. The following photographs were taken in November 2019, and accurately reflect 

conditions found at location J809: 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 14 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 15

65. The photographs above are not exhaustive and are mere examples of the operational 

defaults and deficiencies at San-Tex’s restaurants. 

66. The operational defaults and deficiences have been and are far below brand 

standards for JACK IN THE BOX, and Defendants knew them to be so. 

67. Additionally, many of the operational defaults and deficiences have posed and 

continue to pose a health and safety risk to Jack in the Box, Inc., its employees and/or customers. 

68. Since 2017, Defendants’ deficient operations of the subject restaurants have caused 

multiple instances of bad publicity for the JACK IN THE BOX brand. 

F. San-Tex’s Franchise Agreements and Lease Agreements Are Terminated 

69. Section 17(B)(7) of the Franchise Agreement permits Jack in the Box Inc. to 

terminate the Franchise Agreement and San-Tex’s rights under the Franchise Agreement if SanTex fails on three or more separate occasions within any twenty-four month period to comply with 

the Franchise Agreement or on two or more separate occasions within any twelve-month period to 

comply with the same requirement under the Franchise Agreement. 

70. Pursuant to both the Notice of Default and Franchise Agreement, Section 17(B)(7), 

the Franchise Agreements for the 49 JACK IN THE BOX restaurant locations operated by SanTex automatically terminated at the end of the cure period on August 1, 2019. 

71. The Notice of Termination provided written confirmation that the Franchise 

Agreements for the 49 JACK IN THE BOX restaurant locations operated by San-Tex 

automatically terminated at the end of the cure period on August 1, 2019. 

72. Since August 1, 2019 San-Tex has been operating its JACK IN THE BOX 

restaurants without Franchise Agreements, licenses or permissions from Jack in the Box Inc. 

73. Since August 1, 2019 San-Tex’s operation of JACK IN THE BOX restaurants is 

an infringement of Jack-In-The-Box Inc.’s trademark rights. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 15 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 16

74. Since August 1, 2019 San-Tex’s operation of JACK IN THE BOX restaurants is an 

infringement of Jack-In-The-Box Inc.’s numerous intellectual property rights. 

75. Pursuant to the cross default clause in the San-Tex Leese Agreements, termination 

of San-Tex’s Franchise Agreements terminated San-Tex’s Lease Agreements. 

76. Since August 1, 2019 San-Tex’s Lease Agreements have been terminated. SanTex’s current occupancy of the Lease Agreements’ premises is thus unlawful. 

77. San-Tex stipulated in the Franchise Agreements to the uniqueness, confidentiality 

and value of the Marks and the System as well as the advantages and benefits which may be 

obtained by using the System and the Marks in the operation of a Jack in the Box restaurant. 

78. Upon termination or expiration of a Franchise Agreement, the franchisee's right to 

use the Marks and the System ends. 

79. Upon termination of San-Tex’s Franchise Agreements, the Franchise Agreements 

have prohibited San-Tex from identifying itself or its restaurants as JACK IN THE BOX 

restaurants and from using any of the Marks or any mark confusingly similar thereto, and from 

using or disclosing to others any of Jack in the Box Inc.’s trade secrets, operating procedures, or 

promotional materials. 

80. Franchisees agree in the Franchise Agreement that upon termination of a 

franchisee’s Franchise Agreement, the franchisee will return to Jack in the Box Inc. all manuals 

and any other material containing trade secrets, restaurant operating instructions or business 

practices of Jack in the Box Inc. 

G. San-Tex Is in Breach of the Franchise Agreements’ and Lease Agreements’ postTermination Requirements. 

81. The Notice of Default made demand on San Tex to perform the post-termination 

obligations required in its Franchise Agreements upon their termination due to San-Tex’s failure 

to cure defaults, including the obligation to immediately “de-identify” the restaurant locations and 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 16 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 17

surrender all proprietary materials to Jack in the Box, Inc. Specifically, Section 17(F) of the 

Franchise Agreements contains the following requirements: 

82. To date, San-Tex has failed and/or refused to comply with their post-termination 

obligations under the Franchise Agreements and the leases. 

83. Because of San-Tex’s failure and refusal to comply with its obligations as set forth 

herein, Plaintiffs have been required to retain the undersigned attorneys and to pay them a 

reasonable fee for their services in connection with these proceedings and in order to enforce the 

terms of the Franchise Agreements, the leases, and other collateral agreements. 

H. Trademark Infringement 

84. Defendants are using Plaintiffs’ Marks to identify Defendants’ restaurants, 

restaurant goods and services, in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights. 

85. Defendants’ acts complained of herein have injured and are likely to injure 

Plaintiffs, including injuring their business reputations and diluting the distinctive quality of 

Plaintiffs’ Marks, and are likely to injure the trademarks’ value to Plaintiffs. 

86. On information and belief, Defendants do not currently intend to cease using 

Plaintiffs’ Marks to identify Defendants’ restaurants and restaurant goods and services. 

I. The Individual Defendants. 

87. Defendants Atour Eyvazian, Anil S. Yadav, and Vandana Yadav (the Individual 

Defendants”) have guaranteed San-Tex Inc.’s performance of San-Tex Inc.’s Franchise 

F. Upon termination or expiratic;mof'this Agreement, Franchisee's right to use 

the Marks and the System shall terminate. Franchisee shall not tl:lereafter identify 

himself as a JACK IN THE BOX Franchisee, nor use any of the Marks or any mark 

confusingly similar thereto, nor use or disclose to others any of JIB's trade secrets, 

operating procedures, or promotioi:,al materials. Upon termination or expiration of this 

franchise, Franchisee will- Immediately return ·to J1B all Manuals, together with all other 

material containir:ig trade secrets, restaurant operating instructions or business practices 

of JIB. . 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 17 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 18

Agreements and Lease Agreements with Jack in the Box Inc. and Jack in the Box Eastern Division 

LLP. The Individual Defendants are liable to Jack in the Box Inc. and Jack in the Box Eastern 

Division LLP for all of San-Tex Inc.’s obligations to Jack in the Box Inc. and Jack in the Box 

Eastern Division LLP. 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

88. Plaintiffs make the following claims for relief, each independently and without 

waiving the other. 

COUNT ONE – BREACH OF CONTRACT 

89. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and reallege each and every allegation previously set forth 

in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

90. Defendants have failed to perform in accordance with the terms of the Franchise 

Agreements, leases and other agreements. 

91. Despite receipt of the Notice, Defendants have failed to cure their operational 

deficiencies. 

92. As a result of Defendants’ failure to cure their operational deficiencies, Defendants 

have breached the Franchise Agreements, leases and other agreements. 

93. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be damaged as a result of Defendants’ breach. 

COUNT TWO – SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE 

94. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and reallege each and every allegation previously set forth 

in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

95. Plaintiffs would show that monetary damages are inadequate to remedy 

Defendants’ refusal to comply with their obligations under the Franchise Agreements, leases, and 

other agreements, including but not limited to their obligation to surrender all proprietary 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 18 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 19

materials, to “de-identify” themselves with Jack in the Box, and to cease their use of Plaintiffs’ 

trade secrets, the Marks, and the System. 

96. All of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property, including, without limtiation, the Marks, 

trade secrets, and specialized knowledge are unique and irreplaceable such that monetary damages 

would be a wholly inadequate remedy for their unauthorized use and coversion. 

97. This property is only licensed to parties who agree to comply with the standards set 

by Jack in the Box, Inc. and cannot be acquired without qualification and the consent of Jack in 

the Box, Inc. 

98. For all of these reasons, specific performance is appropriate and necessary in order 

to provide Plaintiffs with the relief to which they are entitled. 

99. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek judgment of this Court ordering the Defendants to 

comply with their post-termination obligations under the Franchise Agreements and the leases, 

including a mandate to surrender all trade secrets and proprietary material and processes, including 

the following: 

a. The Marks, 

b. The System, 

c. All operating manuals and other written materials for Jack in the Box 

restaurants, 

d. All plans and specifications for distinctive, standardized premises and 

interior and exterior formats, styles, designs, decors, fixtures, equipment, 

layouts and signs, 

e. The public image that each Jack in the Box restaurant is a unit in an 

established quick-service restaurant chain with uniform high standards for 

product quality and service and aesthetic effect of the restaurant premises, 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 19 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 20

f. All signage bearing or depicting the Marks or any one or more of them, 

g. All restaurant operating standards, specifications and procedures, 

h. The Franchised Restaurant buildings and Premises including, without 

limitation, its landscaping, lighting, fixtures, furnishings, decor, signs and 

parking area, 

i. All menus, menu panels, posters or similar items, 

j. All specialized equipment situated in the restaurant sites, 

k. All specialized computer hardware and software, equipment and services, 

l. All food, supplies beverage ingredients, paper goods, utensils, packaging, 

cleaning supplies and uniforms, 

m. All unique food and beverage products as set forth in the Manuals or 

otherwise produced through the use of the System, 

n. All packaging, 

o. All specialized uniforms and apparel, 

p. All advertising and Promotional Materials, including those distributed or 

displayed through television, radio, the internet, newspapers, magazines, 

flyers, posters, billboards, mailing circulars, coupons or gift certificates. 

100. For the purposes of this Complaint, the items enumerated in above-referenced 

paragraphs are collectively referred to as “the Proprietary Property.” 

COUNT THREE – TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE LANHAM ACT 

101. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and reallege each and every allegation previously set forth 

in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

102. The Marks are valid trademarks that are registered on the Principal Register of the 

United States Trademark Office. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 20 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 21

103. Defendants’ use of the Marks after termination of the Franchise Agreements on 

August 1, 2019 is unauthorized by Plaintiffs. 

104. Defendants knew their continued use of the Marks after termination of the 

Franchise Agreements on August 1, 2019 was unauthorzied by Plaintiffs. 

105. On information and belief, Defendants’ continued use of the Marks after 

termination of the Franchise Agreements on August 1, 2019 was willful and egregious, in that 

Defendants have persisted in their infringing conduct despite having been on notice in August 

2019 and thereafter that the Franchise Agreements (and their licenses to use the Marks) were 

terminated. 

106. Defendants’ use of the Marks causes confusion or deception because the public is 

fraudulently led to believe that Defendants are the source of services marked in an unauthorized 

manner by Defendants with a mark identical or substantially indistinguishable from the Marks. 

107. Defendants’ actions constitute trademark infringement in violation of Plaintiffs' 

rights under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114. 

108. Accordingly, as a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful activities, Plaintiffs have 

suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including 

but not limited to an award of Defendants’ profits and any actual damages sustained by Plaintiffs, 

as well as an enhancement of the amounts found as actual damages not exceeding three times such 

amounts. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek an award of nominal damages. 

109. Plaintiffs also seek the delivery of all articles, including Defendants’ marketing 

materials, signage, et cetera, which make use of Plaintiffs’ trademarks in a manner that violates 

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act as alleged above. 15 U.S.C. § 1118. 

110. Plaintiffs seeks permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from further 

violating Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act in the manners alleged herein because: (a) Plaintiffs 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 21 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 22

have suffered and/or will suffer an irreparable injury; (b) other remedies available at law, such as 

monetary damages, are inadequate to fully compensate Plaintiffs for that injury; (c) a remedy in 

equity is warranted; and (d) the public interest will not be disserved by an injunction, permanent 

or otherwise. 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). 

111. On information and belief, Defendants’ alleged misconduct is willful, intentional, 

and/or conducted in bad faith, thereby rendering this case exceptional within the meaning of 

section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Plaintiffs also seek an award of its 

reasonable attorney fees for this action and any appeals thereof pursuant to applicable law. 

112. Plaintiffs seek an award of its costs for this action and any appeals thereof pursuant 

to applicable law. See 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); see FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1). 

COUNT FOUR – COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 

113. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and reallege each and every allegation previously set forth 

in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

114. Plaintiffs have common law rights in the Marks by virtue of the Mark's 

eligibility for protection and Plaintiffs’ status as senior user of the Marks.

115. The Marks are associated by consumers with goods and services offered by 

Plaintiffs.

116. Defendants’ acts as described above constitute, inter alia common law 

infringement of Plaintiffs’ Marks, resulting in irreparable injury to Plaintiffs.

117. Defendants’ infringement has damaged Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined 

at trial, including but not limited to loss of goodwill and brand reputation, lost profits, 

attorneys’ fees and costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. 

118. Defendants’ infringement has caused and, unless restrained by the Court, will 

continue to cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury to their goodwill and reputation. Further use of 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 22 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 23

the Marks by Defendants in operation of their business must be enjoined by this Court. 

COUNT FIVE – TRADEMARK DILUTION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT 

119. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and reallege each and every allegation previously set forth 

in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

120. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Marks, or a mark substantially similar 

thereto, is causing dilution of the Marks through blurring and/or tarnishment. Defendants’ use 

is further impairing the capacity of Plaintiffs to identify and distinguish the goods and services 

they offer.

121. Defendants’ aforementioned acts constitute trademark dilution in violation of 

the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

122. Defendants’ conduct complained of herein constitutes willful trademark 

dilution in violation of the Lanham Act, entitling Plaintiffs to treble damages and attorney’s 

fees.

COUNT SIX – FALSE ASSOCIATION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT 

123. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and reallege each and every allegation previously set forth 

in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

124. Defendants’ alleged actions violate Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) (“Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act”), by false association. See Lexmark 

Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1384 (2014) (“Section 1125(a) thus 

creates two distinct bases of liability: false association, § 1125(a)(1)(A), and false advertising, § 

1125(a)(1)(B).”). 

125. Defendants’ alleged actions are without Plaintiffs’ consent and likely to cause 

confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of 

Defendants with Plaintiffs, as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the Defendants’ restaurants 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 23 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 24

and restaurant goods and services or commercial activities by Plaintiffs. Such acts constitute 

violations of Section 43(a), and Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be injured as a result. 

COUNT SEVEN – UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND MISAPPROPRIATION 

126. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and reallege each and every allegation previously set forth 

in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

127. Defendants’ acts complained of herein have unjustly enriched Defendants’ and 

have misappropriated Plaintiffs’ property. 

COUNT EIGHT – PUNITIVE AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 

128. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and reallege each and every allegation previously set forth 

in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

129. On information and belief, Defendants’ acts complained of herein have been done 

willfully and with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs request punitive and 

exemplary damages in an amount not less than ten times Plaintiffs’ actual damages and 

Defendants’ wrongful profits. 

COUNT NINE – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

130. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and reallege each and every allegation previously set forth 

in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

131. Defendants are irrevocably committed to pursuing in the future the above-described 

courses of conduct to Plaintiffs’ great immediate and incalculable harm. Plaintiffs seek a 

declaratory judgment pursuant to Title 28, § 2201, United States Code. 

132. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ Marks are valid and enforceable 

and that Plaintiffs have the exclusive right to use its Plaintiffs’ Marks and colorable imitations of 

them to identify their registrations, recited goods and services. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 24 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 25

133. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ Marks as 

complained of herein infringes Plaintiffs’ valid trademark rights. 

134. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ acts complained of herein 

are unlawful. 

COUNT TEN – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

135. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and reallege each and every allegation previously set forth 

in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

136. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury without the injunctive relief requested 

herein. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law without the injunctive relief requested herein. 

The injury Plaintiffs face without the injunctive relief requested herein outweighs the injury that 

will be sustained by Defendants as a result of said injunctive relief requested herein. The requested 

injunctive relief will not adversely affect public policy or the public interest. Plaintiffs seek 

permanent injunctive relief ordering Defendants to cease their described unlawful courses of 

action. 

COUNT ELEVEN – CONSOLIDATED ALLEGATIONS 

137. Each of the facts alleged above is alleged together with and in support of each and 

every cause of action herein. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that Defendants be cited to answer and appear, and that 

upon presentation of the requisite proof, Plaintiffs be awarded the following relief: 

a. A judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for breach of the Franchise 

Agreements, the leases, or otherwise caused or occasioned by the actions 

complained of in this Complaint; 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 25 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 26

b. An order of specific performance directing Defendants to comply with all post 

termination obligations under the Franchise Agreements and the leases; 

c. Judgment and declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ United States federal trademark 

registrations identified herein are valid and enforceable; 

d. Judgment and declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs have the exclusive right to use 

their Marks in each of the United States, Texas, and Bexar County, Texas; 

e. Judgment and declaratory judgment that Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ Marks 

infringes Plaintiffs’ trademark rights in each of the United States, Texas, and Bexar 

County, Texas; 

f. Judgment and declaratory judgment that Defendants’ acts complained of herein are 

unlawful; 

g. Judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, awarding Defendants’ profits 

and any actual damages sustained by Plaintiffs, as well as an enhancement of the 

amounts found as actual damages not exceeding three times such amounts, and for 

punitive damages, both due to Defendants’ willful, egregious and knowing acts as 

pled herein, undertaken in callous disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights; 

h. Judgment granting a permanent injunction mandating and enjoining Defendants, its 

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with 

Defendants: 

(1) from representing to anyone or committing any acts calculated to cause 

members of the public to believe that Defendants’ restaurants and restaurant 

goods and services have any authority, sponsorship, affiliation, or any 

connection with Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ restaurants and restaurant goods and 

services. 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 26 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 27

(2) from using Plaintiff’s Marks to identify Defendants’ restaurants and 

restaurant goods and services; 

(3) from using Plaintiffs’ Marks to identify Defendants’ restaurants and 

restaurant goods and services or any other words or indicia similar thereto 

that may cause, or may be likely to cause, confusion, mistake, or deception 

by the public, alone or in combination with any other word or words; 

(4) from unfairly competing with Plaintiffs; 

(5) from continuing its unlawful acts as complained of herein; 

i. Pre-complaint and post-complaint interest; 

j. The costs, fees, and expenses of attorneys as set forth in the Franchise Agreements 

and/or the leases; or as otherwise provided by applicable law; 

k. All costs of suit; and 

l. Such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs may show 

themselves justly entitled. 

 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 27 of 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Page 28

Respectfully submitted, 

JACKSON WALKER LLP 

By: 

 Amanda N. Crouch 

State Bar No. 24077401 

acrouch@jw.com 

112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 2400 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

(210) 978-7784 – Telephone 

(210) 978-7790 – Facsimile 

- and - 

Stacy Allen 

State Bar No. 24034185 

stacyallen@jw.com

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100 

Austin, Texas 78701 

(512) 236-2000 – Telephone 

(512) 236-2002 – Facsimile 

- and - 

Samuel S. Allen 

State Bar No. 01057000 

sallen@jw.com 

136 W. Twohig Avenue, Suite B 

San Angelo, Texas 76903 

(325) 481-2550 – Telephone 

(325) 481-2552 – Fax 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS JACK 

IN THE BOX, INC. AND JACK IN THE 

BOX EASTERN DIVISION, LP 

23762800v.10 

Case 5:20-cv-00328-XR Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 28 of 28