UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

Case No. 07 CV 5785 (PAC) (JCF) 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

KARAM PRASAD LLC d/b/a/ BISHOP OF 

SEVENTH, a New York limited liability 

company, 

 Plaintiff, 

- against - 

CACHE, INC., a Florida corporation, 

 Defendant. 

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED FOR 

ANY AND ALL ISSUES HEREIN THAT 

ARE TRIABLE OF RIGHT BY JURY.

Plaintiff, Karam Prasad LLC d/b/a/ Bishop of Seventh, as and for its Amended 

Complaint herein, upon information and belief, hereby states and alleges as follows: 

PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff, Karam Prasad LLC, is a New York limited liability company, 

doing business as Bishop of Seventh, with a place of business at 147 W. 35th St., Ste. 

1801, New York, NY 10001-2110. 

2. Defendant, Cache, Inc., is a Florida corporation with a principal place of 

business at 1440 Broadway, Fl. 5, New York, NY 10018-2385. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. This is an action for trademark and trade dress infringement and unfair 

competition arising the Federal Trademark Act of July 5, 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. 

as amended, and under New York statutory and common law. 

4. This court has original and supplemental jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 

1121(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(b) in that these claims are brought to determine 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 23
a question of actual controversy between the parties arising under the trademark and

unfair competition laws of the United States, and claims of unfair competition under New 

York law are joined with substantial and related claims under the Trademark Act. 

5. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2). 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

6. Plaintiff was formed in December 2003. Plaintiff’s principals--Karam

Kim and Chachi Prasad-- are fashion designers having previous experience with Calvin

Klein and Oscar De la Renta and other well-known fashion designers. 

7. Plaintiff creates, manufactures, and markets designer clothing, including

jeans, sold through fashionable department stores and high-end boutiques such as

Nordstrom and Wynn Las Vegas. Plaintiff’s jeans are sold at retail at a price range of two

hundred to three hundred forty dollars ($$200-340). 

8. After carefully researching brands and logos in the denim market, Plaintiff 

created an original design, shown below within the outline of a rear pocket, as a 

trademark to identify and distinguish its line of designer jeans: 

 2

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 2 of 23
9. Plaintiff’s trademark, depicted above, is stitched into both back pockets of

its jeans. A photograph of Plaintiff’s jean design is shown at attached Exhibit A. This 

pocket stitching acts as Plaintiff’s signature and is known to customers and in the trade as

its distinguishing trademark. (Herein, the “signature” trademark.) 

10. Plaintiff adopted and used its signature trademark before the acts

complained of herein by Defendant. More particularly, Plaintiff used its trademark at

least as early as September 2004, and continues to use its mark in commerce. 

11. In conjunction with its signature trademark, Plaintiff uses a composite

trademark consisting of the signature trademark with crystals inlaid in a besom pocket 

above the signature trademark. (Herein, the “composite” trademark.) This composite

trademark is also shown in Exhibit A. Plaintiff used its composite trademark before the 

acts complained of herein by Defendant. 

12. Plaintiff’s signature and composite trademarks are inherently distinctive. 

Through use and promotion thereof, Plaintiff’s trademarks have become an intrinsic and 

essential part of the valuable goodwill and property of Plaintiff. 

13. In addition to its trademarks, Plaintiff also adopted and uses a trade dress 

for its jeans that is non-functional and uniquely identifies these products. This trade dress 

comprises the crystals inlaid in the besom pocket above each of the back pockets, as

discussed above for the composite mark, and these crystals are also repeated in both inner

leg seams. 

14. Plaintiff used its trade dress at least as early as April 2005. This use is

before the acts of Defendant complained of herein. 

 3

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 3 of 23
15. Defendant retails clothing through its website at http://www.cache.com/

and approximately two hundred sixty (260) stores nationwide. 

16. Defendant markets a jean product called Besom Pocket Stretch Jean. This 

product was advertised for eighty-eight dollars ($88) on Defendant’s website, as shown at 

the web page attached as Exhibit B. 

17. The foregoing jeans marketed by Defendant have a design stitched into

both rear pockets. A photograph of these jeans is attached as Exhibit C showing this 

design. This design is virtually identical to Plaintiff’s design shown in paragraph 8 above.

In overall shape, contour and curve, the designs in the rear pocket stitching of Plaintiff 

and Defendant, as shown in Exhibits A and C, are strikingly similar. 

18. These jeans marketed by Defendant also use a besom pocket design inlaid

with crystals and these inlaid crystals are also repeated in the outer seams of both legs. 

19. Defendant copied from Plaintiff the design stitched into the rear pockets 

of its Besom Pocket Stretch Jeans and the use of crystals inlaid into besom rear pockets 

and leg seams. 

20. Plaintiff’s counsel notified counsel for Defendant by letter dated May 22, 

2007 that Defendant’s jeans were an infringing product. A copy of this letter is attached 

at Exhibit D. Defendant did not respond to this letter. Further notification was provided

by emails of June 1 and 4, 2007 by Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant’s counsel, copy

attached at Exhibit E. Defendant did not respond to these emails. 

21. Defendant’s conduct is causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff through

likelihood of confusion, deception and/or mistake as to the source of origin, source,

sponsorship or approval of Defendant’s jeans, through the dilution of the distinctive 

 4

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 4 of 23
quality of Plaintiff’s trademarks and trade dress, and through the depreciation of

Plaintiff’s valuable goodwill and business reputation symbolized by its trademarks and

trade dress. 

22. Defendant’s unlawful use of Plaintiff’s trademarks and trade dress is a

consumer-oriented deceptive practice that is materially misleading and injurious to

consumers, to Plaintiff, and to the public interest. 

23. Defendant’s unlawful acts, unless restrained, are likely to continue 

diverting sales from Plaintiff and causing irreparable harm. Plaintiff has no adequate

remedy at law because injury to reputation and goodwill cannot be quantified and such

injury cannot be compensated by monetary awards. 

24. Defendant’s unlawful acts alleged herein have been willful, deliberate,

intentional, malicious, and in bad faith. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 

26. As a complete and first ground for relief, Defendant’s aforesaid acts 

constitute trademark infringement, of the signature mark and/or composite mark, in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), thereby invoking and making available to Plaintiff the 

remedies under the Trademark Act. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

27. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 

 5

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 5 of 23
28. As a complete and second ground for relief, Defendant’s aforesaid acts

constitute trade dress infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), thereby invoking

and making available to Plaintiff the remedies under the Trademark Act. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 

30. As a complete and third ground for relief, Defendant’s aforesaid acts 

constitute trademark infringement, of the signature mark and/or composite mark, in 

violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 33.09, thereby invoking 

and making available to Plaintiff the remedies under that Act. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

31. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 

32. As a complete and fourth ground for relief, Defendant’s aforesaid acts

constitute trade dress infringement in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs

Law Section 33.09, thereby invoking and making available to Plaintiff the remedies 

under that Act. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 

34. As a complete and fifth ground for relief, Defendant’s aforesaid acts as 

trademark infringement, of the signature mark and/or composite mark, constitute a

 6

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 6 of 23
violation of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law, thereby invoking and

making available to Plaintiff the remedies under that Act. 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

35. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 

36. As a complete and sixth ground for relief, Defendant’s aforesaid acts as

trade dress infringement constitute a violation of Section 349 of the New York General

Business Law, thereby invoking and making available to Plaintiff the remedies under that

Act. 

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 

38. As a complete and seventh ground for relief, Defendant’s aforesaid acts as

trademark infringement, of the signature mark and/or composite mark, constitute a

violation of Section 360-l of the New York General Business Law, thereby invoking and

making available to Plaintiff the remedies under that Act. 

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 

40. As a complete and eighth ground for relief, Defendant’s aforesaid acts as

trade dress infringement constitute a violation of Section 360-l of the New York General 

Business Law, thereby invoking and making available to Plaintiff the remedies under that

Act. 

 7

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 7 of 23
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

41. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 

42. As a complete and ninth ground for relief, Defendant’s aforesaid acts of

trademark infringement, of the signature mark and/or composite mark, constitute a

violation of New York common law, thereby invoking and making available to Plaintiff

common law remedies for same. 

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 

44. As a complete and tenth ground for relief, Defendant’s aforesaid acts of

trade dress infringement constitute a violation of New York common law, thereby

invoking and making available to Plaintiff common law remedies for same. 

[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.] 

 8

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 8 of 23
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

i. Judgment declaring the following: 

a. Plaintiff’s trademarks and trade dress are valid and enforceable and 

are the exclusive property of Plaintiff; and 

b. Defendant has infringed Plaintiff’s trademarks and trade dress and

competed unfairly with Plaintiff, and that such infringement and

unfair competition has been willful, deliberate, intentional, 

malicious, and in bad faith. 

ii. That Defendant, and each of its officers, agents, servants, employees 

attorneys, successors and assigns, and all persons in active concert or

participation with them, be enjoined preliminarily and permanently from: 

a. Using in any manner Plaintiff’s trademarks or trade dress, or any

other mark or trade dress which so resembles that of Plaintiff as to

be likely to cause confusion, deception or mistake on or in

connection with the advertising, sale or offering for sale of any

product not authorized by Plaintiff; 

b. Using any false or misleading designation of origin which tends to 

pass off Defendant’s products as those of Plaintiff; and 

c. Any other conduct that otherwise infringes Plaintiff’s trademarks

or trade dress or competes unfairly with Plaintiff. 

iii. An order directing Defendant to deliver immediately to Plaintiff or its

attorneys for destruction or other appropriate disposition any and all 

 9

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 9 of 23
products, labels, signs, prints, packages wrappers, advertising matter or 

other promotional material in its possession or control bearing Plaintiff’s

trademarks or trade dress, or any other mark or trade dress which so 

resembles that of Plaintiff as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or 

deception. 

iv. That Defendant, within 30 days after service of judgment with notice of

entry thereof, be required to file with the court and serve upon Plaintiff’s

attorneys a written report under oath setting forth in detail the manner in 

which Defendant has complied with paragraphs ii and iii above. 

v. An accounting of all profits received by Defendant from the sale of 

products in connection with its acts of infringement and unfair 

competition. 

vi. An award of the actual damages sustained by Plaintiff, including a 

reasonable royalty, on account of Defendant’s infringement and unfair

competition. 

vii. That this court order Defendant to pay treble damages and/or profits in 

view of its willful infringement and unfair competition. 

viii. That Defendant be required to pay punitive and/or enhanced damages in

an amount the court may determine for its malicious, willful, intentional,

deliberate, and bad-faith tortuous conduct. 

ix. That Defendant pay all costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney’s fees

incurred by Plaintiff in this matter.

 10

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 10 of 23
x. That Plaintiff be awarded interest, including prejudgment interest, for any

monetary award of damages and/or profits. 

xi. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: New York, New York 

July 19, 2007 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO 

& BRANIGAN, P.C. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Michael S. Culver, of counsel 

(seeking pro hac vice admission) 

culver@mwzb.com 

2200 Clarendon Blvd., Ste. 1400 

Arlington, VA 22201-3360 

(703) 243-6333 tel. 

(703) 243-6410 fax 

EDWARD F. WESTFIELD, P.C. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

By: s/ 

Edward F. Westfield Jr. 

 (EW1625) 

 efwjr@efwpc.com

274 Madison Ave., Ste. 1601 

New York, NY 10016-0701 

(212) 532-6625 tel. 

(212) 532-6627 fax 

TO: NIXON PEABODY LLP 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Attn: Tamar Duvdevani, Esq. 

(tduvdevani@nixonpeabody.com) 

437 Madison Ave., Fl. 23 

New York, NY 10022-7039 

(212) 940-3000 tel. 

(212) 940-3111 fax 

 11

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 11 of 23
Exhibit A 

Exhibit A 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 12 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 13 of 23
Exhibit B 

Exhibit B 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 14 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 15 of 23
Exhibit C 

Exhibit C 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 16 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 17 of 23
Exhibit D 

Exhibit D 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 18 of 23
May 22, 2007 

Delivered & By Email

Corrine R. Gorski, Esq. 

NIXON PEABODY LLP 

Suite 900 

401 9th Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20004-2145 

Re: Trademark/Trade Dress Infringement 

 Karam Prasad, LLC v. Cache, Inc.__

Dear Ms. Gorski: 

 We are writing to you in your capacity as trademark counsel for Cache, Inc. We 

represent Karam Prasad, LLC (“KPL”), owner of the BISHOP OF SEVENTH and PRASAD 

brands for quality designer jeans and other apparel sold through high-end boutiques, such as 

Wynn Las Vegas, and department stores such as Nordstrom. 

 Since its inception, and as is common practice in the industry, our client has identified its 

jeans with a unique design stitched into the rear pockets. This pocket stitching is KPL’s 

signature and is known to customers and in the trade as its distinguishing mark. KPL has also 

marketed jeans with a unique jewel design positioned above the rear pockets and in the inside 

seams. 

 Cache has blatantly and willfully copied, among other things, our client’s pocket stitching 

and jewel designs in its product Besom Pocket Stretch Jean. Attached as Exhibit A is a page 

from the website at cache.com for reference. Further evidence of the copying is in the 

photographs attached as Exhibit B showing the respective products by KPL and Cache. 

 In view of the foregoing, we must demand that your client immediately cease all sales of 

the infringing product and provide an accounting of all sales. We must have your response by no 

later than Friday, May 25, 2007. Please note that nothing contained in or omitted from this letter 

shall be deemed an admission of any facts or a waiver of any rights or remedies which KPL may 

have, all of which are expressly reserved. 

 Respectfully, 

 s/

 Michael S. Culver 

Enclosures 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 19 of 23
Exhibit E

Exhibit E

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 20 of 23
Edward F. Westfield Jr.

From: Michael Culver [Culver@mwzb.com]

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:31 PM

To: cgorski@nixonpeabody.com; Scott Major

Subject: Karam Prasad v. Cache

Page 1 of 1

6/18/2007

Dear Ms. Gorski:

 

Please respond today by return email to my email below of June 1.

 

Michael Culver

-----Original Message----- 

From: Michael Culver 

Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:34 AM 

To: 'cgorski@nixonpeabody.com'; Scott Major 

Subject: Karam Prasad v. Cache 

 

Dear Ms. Gorski:

 

I understand from your secretary that you are presently out of the office. As we discussed on May 29, Cache was 

to respond to my May 22 letter by May 30 or 31. Please confirm by return email whether that response was sent, 

and if so, please forward a copy by email. Otherwise, please state a date certain when Cache will respond. Any 

further delay will be viewed unfavorably given the details set forth in my May 22 letter.

 

Please respond by copying to my partner, Scott Major, as indicated above.

Michael Culver 

MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. 

Suite 1400 

2200 Clarendon Boulevard 

Arlington, Virginia 22201 

Tel 703-243-6333 

Fax 703-243-6410 

Culver@mwzb.com 

This e-mail (and any attachments) is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). This communication is confidential and protected by the Electronic 

Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2522, and may contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended 

recipient (or authorized to receive for him/her), please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, copying or disclosure is 

strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us and destroy any copies of this e-mail.

 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 21 of 23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

Case No. 07 CV 5785 (PAC) (JCF) 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 

KARAM PRASAD LLC d/b/a/ BISHOP OF 

SEVENTH, a New York limited liability 

company, 

 Plaintiff, 

- against - 

CACHE, INC., a Florida corporation, 

 Defendant. 

STATE OF NEW YORK 

COUNTY OF NEW YORK } SS.: 

EDWARD F. WESTFIELD JR., being duly sworn deposes and says 

1. I am not a party to this action, am 18 years of age or older, and reside in 

the Borough of Brooklyn, County of Kings, City and State of New York. I am associated 

with Edward F. Westfield, P.C., attorneys for the plaintiff (local counsel) in the above 

entitled action. 

2. July 19, 2007, I served a true and correct copy of the annexed Amended 

Complaint, by depositing the papers, enclosed in a properly addressed wrapper into the 

custody of an overnight delivery service (FedEx) for overnight delivery, prior to the latest 

time designated by the overnight delivery service for overnight delivery, addressed to the 

following address, which is designated by the addressee for that purpose or, if none is 

designated, which is the last known address of the addressee: 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 22 of 23
 2

NIXON PEABODY LLP 

ATTN: TAMAR DUVDEVANI ESQ 

437 MADISON AVE FL 23 

NEW YORK NY 10022-7039 

(212) 940-3000 TEL 

FEDEX NO: 7996 7845 2706 

 /s/

Edward F. Westfield Jr. 

Sworn to before me this 

19th day of July, 2007

/s/ 

 (Notary Public) 

EDWARD F. WESTFIELD, P.C. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

274 Madison Ave., Ste. 1601 

New York, NY 10016-0701 

(212) 532-6625 tel. 

(212) 532-6625 tel. 

www.efwpc.com 

EDWARD F. WESTFIELD

Notary Public, State of New York

N0O. 02WE5026190 

Qualified In Bronx County 

Commission Expires April 11, 2010 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 23 of 23