Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/148124581/Sensible-Foods-v-World-Gourmet
Timestamp: 2015-07-06 18:00:47
Document Index: 454279497

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 17200', '§ 17500', '§ 17500', '§ 1051', '§ 32', '§1114', '§1114', '§1125', '§ 1064', '§1125', '§ 1117', '§3294']

P. 1Sensible Foods v World GourmetSensible Foods v World GourmetRatings: (0)|Views: 8|Likes: 0Published by Lara PearsonFalse Advertising Class Action LawsuitFalse Advertising Class Action LawsuitMore info:Categories:Types, Business/LawPublished by: Lara Pearson on Jun 16, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/148124581/Sensible-Foods-v-World-Gourmet12/05/2013pdftextoriginal 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
FREDERICK M. RARICK, ESQ.BAR NO.: 111152Lawjet@aol.com 13 Pinto Lane, Suite OK Rolling Hills Estates, CA.90274Tel: (585) 219-4900Fax: (585) 219-4905Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
SENSIBLE FOODS, LLCPlaintiff,v.WORLD GOURMET, INC., HAIN GOURMET,INC., HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,WORLD GOURMET MARKETING, LLC,SENSIBLE SNACKS, INC. AND DOES 1-20,DefendantsCase No.: 3:11-cv-02819-SC
COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF IMPLIEDCONTRACT, BREACH OF CONTRACT,BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OFGOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING,CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT, STATELAW UNFAIR COMPETITION &DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES, STATELAW FALSE ADVERTISING, FEDERALTRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, REVERSECONFUSION, CANCELLATION OFFEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION,FEDERAL FALSE ADVERTISINGMISREPRESENTATION & UNFAIR COMPETITION, AND COMMON LAWTRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
1Case No. 3:11-cv-02819-SC
Case3:11-cv-02819-SC Document28 Filed12/01/11 Page1 of 71
Plaintiff, Sensible Foods, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, alleges againstDefendants, and each of them, World Gourmet, Inc., World Gourmet Marketing, LLC; The Hain-Celestial Group, Inc., Hain Gourmet, Inc., and Sensible Snacks, Inc. and Does 1-20 inclusive asfollows: NATURE OF ACTION1.Plaintiff, Sensible Foods, LLC, is a California Limited Liability Company and is engaged in thedevelopment and the sale of a wide range of established products consisting of a full line of gluten-free, organic, healthy and natural dried-fruit and dried-vegetable snacks and relatedgoods, sold worldwide.2.Plaintiff brings this action to 1) obtain relief and damages from Defendant, Hain-Celestial, Inc.’s breaches of contract and the covenant of good-faith and fair dealing and 2) Defendants a)knowing and willful infringement of Plaintiff’s registered trademarks, some of which areincontestable, b) trading on and usurping Plaintiff’s accumulated goodwill, c) confusing (directlyor in reverse) the public in their purchases, d) causing the public to mistake their purchases; e)deceiving the public as to the source of their purchases and the inherent characteristics of the products purchased, e) falsely asserting sponsorship of or affiliation with the Plaintiff or its products, and 3) to enjoin the Defendants ongoing, individual and collective conduct leading tothe violations of law in 1) and 2).3.To protect its rights and enjoin Defendants from further harmful conduct, the Plaintiff brings thisaction for Breach of Implied Contract, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, unfair competition in violation of Ca. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200et seq.; deceptive trade practices in violation of Ca. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq., state law
2Case No. 3:11-cv-02819-SC
Case3:11-cv-02819-SC Document28 Filed12/01/11 Page2 of 71
false advertising in violation of Ca. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq., trademark infringementin violation of Sections 32 and 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (the “Lanham Act”), 15 U.S.C.§§ 1051 et. seq.; contributory infringement in violation of § 32 of the Lanham Act, as amended 15U.S.C. §1114; reverse confusion in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C §1114, falsedesignation of origin and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125 (a)et. seq., cancellation of certain Defendant trademarks under the Lanham Act §§ 1064 (1), (3),1119, false advertising, misrepresentation and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act15. U.S.C §1125 (a) et seq, and common law trademark infringement. The Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as full restitution, compensatory,consequential, punitive damages and/or extraordinary remedies under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 andconsistent with California Civil Code §3294, an account of profits, and disgorgement of all profitsand revenues obtained as a result of Defendants' unlawful and deliberate conduct.PARTIES4.Plaintiff, Sensible Foods, LLC, is a California Limited Liability Company, (“Sensible Foods”)and is and was at all times relevant herein a limited liability company duly organized and existingunder the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business located in SonomaCounty, California.5.Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief alleges thatDefendant, World Gourmet Marketing, LLC, (hereinafter, individually “WGM” together withWG and SS the “Pre-Acquisition Defendants” and in its Post-Acquisition capacity, “Defendant” )is and was at all relevant times herein a limited liability company with its principle place of F
3Case No. 3:11-cv-02819-SC
Case3:11-cv-02819-SC Document28 Filed12/01/11 Page3 of 71
More From This UserGoLite Bankruptcy -- Order Approving Liquidation of Assets 2014-11-13 .pdfLara PearsonHellmann's v Just Mayo Docket Report 11-14-2014Lara PearsonHellmann's v Just Mayo -- Preliminary Injunction Motion 11-07-2014Lara PearsonHellmann's v Just Mayo -- Complaint 10-31-2014Lara PearsonHellmann's v Just Mayo Docket Report 11-14-2014Lara PearsonExemplar Companies 2013 Benefit ReportLara PearsonDismissal Sensible Foods v World GourmetLara PearsonAnswer Sensible Foods v World GourmetLara PearsonHearing Denying Settlement Chanee Thurston v UnileverLara PearsonMotion Consolidate Thurston v UnileverLara PearsonElizabeth Cox v. General MillsLara PearsonVoluntary Dismissal Margaret Ohayon v Estee LauderLara PearsonMargaret Ohayon v Estee LauderLara PearsonOrder Granting Class Arleen Cabral v Supple LLCLara PearsonAnswer Arleen Cabral v Supple LLCLara PearsonA Mot Certify Class Arleen Cabral v Supple LLCLara PearsonArleen Cabral v Supple LLCLara PearsonAnswer David Johns Et Al v BayerLara PearsonDavid Johns Et Al v BayerLara PearsonAnswer Ilya Podobedov v Living EssentialsLara PearsonIlya Podobedov v Living EssentialsLara PearsonAdrianna Ault v JM SmuckerLara PearsonOrder Mot Dismiss Leon Khasin v. Hershey CoLara PearsonMot Dismiss Leon Khasin v. Hershey CoLara Pearson