Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/207166689/Chartreuse-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-12-15 15:18:23
Document Index: 180708048

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2201', '§ 1051', '§ 1121', '§ 1331', '§ 1127', 'art3']

Chartreuse Complaint | Declaratory Judgment | Trademark
Case 1:14-cv-00181-WTL-DKL Document 1 Filed 02/07/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CHARTREUSE LLC, an Indiana limited liability company Plaintiff, v. CHARTREUSE FRAGRANCES LLC, a New Jersey corporation Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:14-cv-181
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Chartreuse LLC, an Indiana limited liability company (“Chartreuse”) files this complaint for declaratory judgment against Defendant Chartreuse Fragrances LLC, a New Jersey corporation (“Defendant”). Nature of Action 1. Chartreuse seeks a declaration that its use of the trademark CHARTREUSE (the
“Mark”) in association with handmade soy candles (the “Goods”) does not infringe any rights of Defendant. Chartreuse further seeks a declaration that any alleged trademark rights asserted by Defendant are invalid and unenforceable. 2. Defendant has asserted that Chartreuse’s use of the Mark in connection with the
Goods is likely to cause consumer confusion. Chartreuse denies these allegations. Parties 3. Chartreuse is an Indiana limited liability company with a business address of 5151
Central Ave., Indianapolis, IN 46205.
Case 1:14-cv-00181-WTL-DKL Document 1 Filed 02/07/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2
Defendant is a New Jersey limited liability company with its principal place of
business at Three Horizon Road #1428, Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024.
Jurisdiction and Venue 5. This action arises and is brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2201-2202, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. (the “Lanham Act”), and Indiana statutory and common law. 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 2201-2202. 7. This Court possesses person jurisdiction over Defendant because its false
assertions of infringement were directed to Chartreuse in the State of Indiana. 8. Venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of the events giving rise
to Plaintiff’s claims have occurred and will continue to occur in the Southern District of Indiana. General Allegations 9. Chartreuse has been selling handmade soy candles bearing the Mark since
January of 2013. 10. Defendant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 2,997572 for the mark
CHARTREUSE (“Defendant’s Mark”) in association with “candles” in international class 4 (the “Covered Goods”). 11. On January 7, 2014, Defendant asserted its rights against Chartreuse by claiming
that its use of the Mark infringed Defendant’s rights in Defendant’s Mark and demanding that Chartreuse cease and desist all use of the Mark.
dms.us.53618880.01
Case 1:14-cv-00181-WTL-DKL Document 1 Filed 02/07/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3
There presently exists a justiciable controversy regarding Chartreuse’s right to use
the Mark in connection with the Goods free from any allegation by Defendant that such conduct constitutes an infringement of its rights in Defendant’s Mark. First Claim for Relief (Unenforceability and Invalidity of Defendant’s Mark) 13. paragraphs. 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant was not using Defendant’s Mark in Chartreuse incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding
interstate commerce in association with the Covered Goods on April 19, 2002, as claimed in Defendant’s federal trademark application for Defendant’s Mark filed on June 5, 2004 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”). 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant was not using Defendant’s Mark in
interstate commerce at the time it applied for a federal registration with PTO, as claimed in Defendant’s trademark application for Defendant’s Mark. 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant is not currently using Defendant’s Mark
in interstate commerce in connection with the Covered Goods. 17. Upon information and belief, any use of Defendant’s Mark on or in connection
with the Covered Goods has been discontinued for at least three (3) consecutive years, and has thus been abandoned pursuant to § 1127 of the Lanham Act 18. Defendant’s Mark is descriptive of the Covered Goods and therefore not entitled
to registration, as the term CHARTREUSE is descriptive of a greenish-yellow color.
Case 1:14-cv-00181-WTL-DKL Document 1 Filed 02/07/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 4
Second Claim for Relief (Non-Infringement of Trademark) 19. paragraphs. 20. As an actual justiciable controversy exists, Chartreuse is entitled to a declaratory Chartreuse incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding
judgment that she is not infringing, has not infringed, and is not liable for infringing Defendant’s Mark. Request for Relief WHEREFORE, Chartreuse seeks judgment awarding the following relief: (a) A declaration that Defendant’s Mark (i) lacks the requisite legal requirements to
be protectable under the Lanham Act and (ii) is not entitled to registration on the Principal Register; (b) An order directing the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to cancel United
States Trademark Registration No. 2,997,572; (c) A declaration that Chartreuse is not infringing, has not infringed, and is not liable
for infringing Defendant’s Mark; (d) An order awarding attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in connection
with this action to Chartreuse; and (e) An order and all such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Case 1:14-cv-00181-WTL-DKL Document 1 Filed 02/07/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 5
Respectfully submitted, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
By: /s/ Louis T. Perry Louis T. Perry (Atty. #25736-49) 300 North Meridian Street Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 317.237.0300 louis.perry@faegrebd.com Attorney for Chartreuse LLC
Documents Similar To Chartreuse Complaint
Mcdonald s Corporation vs. l.c. Big Mak Burger Inc [Ipc No. 4011 17 August 2005]
Plumber Manual Part3
unit 5 responding to a professional brief
Ansys CFX - Reference Guide
TM Agent Exam - Candidate Guide 2013
05) Mentholatum Co v Mangaliman
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a Corporation v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, a Corporation, 518 F.2d 292, 10th Cir. (1975)
Quinby v. Conlan, 104 U.S. 420 (1882)