UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

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

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, as and for its 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 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 21
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. One of the Plaintiff’s principals,

Chachi Prasad, is a clothing designer who has previously worked 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

three hundred ten to three hundred forty dollars ($$310-340). 

8. 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 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 21
9. Plaintiff’s trademark, depicted above, is stitched into both rear 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. 

10. Plaintiff adopted and used its 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. Plaintiff’s trademark is inherently distinctive. Through use and promotion 

thereof, Plaintiff’s trademark has become an intrinsic and essential part of the valuable

goodwill and property of Plaintiff. 

12. In addition to its trademark, Plaintiff also adopted and uses a trade dress 

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

comprises a besom pocket design above each of the rear pockets in which the besom is

inlaid with small jewel-like settings and these settings are also repeated in both leg

seams. This besom pocket design is also shown in Exhibit A. 

13. Plaintiff used its trade dress at least as early as September 2004. This use

is before the acts of Defendant complained of herein. 

14. Defendant retails clothing through its website at http://www.cache.com/

and approximately two hundred sixty (260) stores nationwide. 

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

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

the web page attached as Exhibit B. 

 3

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 3 of 21
16. 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. 

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

with small jewel-like settings and these settings are also repeated in the seams of both 

legs. 

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

of its Besom Pocket Stretch Jeans and the use of small jewel-like settings inlaid into

besom rear pockets and leg seams. 

19. 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. 

20. 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 

quality of Plaintiff’s trademark and trade dress, and through the depreciation of Plaintiff’s

valuable goodwill and business reputation symbolized by its trademark and trade dress. 

 4

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 4 of 21
21. Defendant’s unlawful use of Plaintiff’s trademark and trade dress is a 

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

consumers, to Plaintiff, and to the public interest. 

22. 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. 

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

intentional, malicious, and in bad faith. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

24. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

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

constitute trademark infringement 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

26. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

27. 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. 

 5

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 5 of 21
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

28. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

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

constitute trademark 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. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

30. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

31. 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

32. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

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

trademark 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. 

 6

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 6 of 21
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

35. 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 

36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

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

trademark 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. 

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

38. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

39. 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 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 7 of 21
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

40. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

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

trademark infringement constitute a violation of New York common law, thereby

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

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

43. 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 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 8 of 21
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

i. Judgment declaring the following: 

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

are the exclusive property of Plaintiff; and 

b. Defendant has infringed Plaintiff’s trademark 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 trademark 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 trademark 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 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 9 of 21
products, labels, signs, prints, packages wrappers, advertising matter or 

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

trademark 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 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 10 of 21
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 

June 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. 

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: CACHE, INC. 

Defendant 

1440 Broadway, Fl. 5 

New York, NY 10018-2385 

 11

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 11 of 21
Exhibit A 

Exhibit A 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 13 of 21
Exhibit B 

Exhibit B 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 15 of 21
Exhibit C 

Exhibit C 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 17 of 21
Exhibit D 

Exhibit D 

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 18 of 21
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 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 19 of 21
Exhibit E

Exhibit E

Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 20 of 21
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 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 21 of 21