Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/91822460/Complaint-Cayman-Jack-v-Jack-Daniels
Timestamp: 2016-10-28 18:41:16
Document Index: 352653494

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1121', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§ 1064', '§ 1052']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music...J1
Robert N. Phillips (SBN 120970) REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659 Telephone: +1 4155438700 Facsimile: + 1 415 391 8269 Email: robphillips@reedsmith.com David H. Bernstein (Admission Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed) Jyotin Hamid (Admission Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed) DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: +1 2129096696 Facsimile: + 1 212521 7696 Email: dhbernstein@debevoise.com Email: jhamid@debevoise.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARK ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL, SRL and AMERICAN VINTAGE BEVERAGE, INC . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARK ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL, tIL, Barbados corporation, and AMERICAN \J VINTAGE BEVERAGE, INC., a Delawarecorporation, Plaintiffs, vs. JACK DANIEL'S PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant.
::c al ~~
l! .'b
!tl ~ a:: 8.
." !i
N12 2105 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
Plaintiffs Mark Anthony International, SRL and American Vintage Beverage, Inc. (collectively, "Mark Anthony"), by their attorneys, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and Reed Smith LLP, for their complaint against Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. ("JDPI"), allege upon personal knowledge with respect to themselves and their own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: -1COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACTIVE-109278078.1
1. This is a declaratory judgment action. Mark Anthony seeks a declaration that it has the
right to manufacture, distribute, market and sell in the United States a margarita-flavored malt beverage under the trademark CA YMAN JACK, and to register the CA YMAN JACK trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The CA YMAN JACK mark is unlikely to cause confusion in any way with JDPI's JACK DANIEL'S marks. But JDPI has nonetheless opposed Mark Anthony's application to register the CAYMAN JACK trademark and has threatened to file a lawsuit against Mark Anthony to prevent the use of the CAYMAN JACK mark in commerce, thus creating significant risks for Mark Anthony's imminent national launch of the CA YMAN JACK product. 2. CAYMAN JACK products have been available on a test-market basis since December 2010, and are now being sold in fifteen states. During this test-market period, the CAYMAN JACK product has enjoyed strong sales and has won the loyalty of consumers. Significantly, throughout
~ ~ .10
~~ en o~ ~
these fifteen months, Mark Anthony has not learned of a single incident of confusion between its CA YMAN JACK products and JDPI's JACK DANIEL'S products. Nevertheless, and despite the absence of any evidence of actual confusion, JDPI has objected to Mark Anthony's registration and use of the CAYMAN JACK trademark, presumably on the basis that JDPI thinks it has sole ownership of the word "JACK" in connection with the sale of any alcoholic beverage. That proposition is demonstrably untrue, though, because JDPI has tolerated, and even expressly consented to, numerous other alcoholic products sold using the word "JACK" in their names. 3. Furthermore, given the completely different trade dress of the products (as shown below), and other factors, confusion is highly unlikely. The JACK DANIEL'S beverages are sold in 25 ounce (750 ml) or larger bottles that are more than twice the size of the 11.5 ounce bottles used for the CAYMAN JACK product. The bottle shapes are vastly different (a tall, square bottle versus a short, round stubby bottle); the color schemes are vastly different (black and white versus blue and green); the fonts are vastly different (old fashioned versus contemporary); and the label designs are vastly different. The products themselves also are vastly different: one is a brown-colored whiskey (spirit) and the other is a white-colored malt beverage (beer).
-2COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
US_ACTIVE-l0927B078.1
11.5 ounce beer bottle
i'i) .!O
~j V)
4. The marketing and promotion strategy for the CAYMAN JACK brand further confirms that confusion is unlikely. Mark Anthony is targeting the high-end ready-to-drink market with its CAYMAN JACK product, not the spirits market. Mark Anthony's marketing for its CA YMAN JACK beverages highlights the product's connection to the Caribbean, a theme that is infused throughout all promotional materials and that is completely distinct from JDPI's marketing strategy, which emphasizes that JACK DANIEL'S whiskey is an authentic, old fashioned whiskey made in Lynchburg, Tennessee. 5. Mark Anthony's sales and consumer response in the test markets have been overwhelmingly positive. Therefore, the natural next step is to launch CA YMAN JACK products nationwide. Mark Anthony developed a business plan that will bring CA YMAN JACK products to 75 percent of the national market by June. However, Mark Anthony's ability to sustain the launch of the CA YMAN JACK brand, and persuade retailers nationally to devote shelf-space to this new product, is threatened by the specter and threat of litigation by JDPI. For that reason, Mark Anthony seeks a declaration from this Court granting it the right to register the CA YMAN JACK trademark and sell products under that mark.
-3COMPLAINT FOR DECLARA T6i.V JUDGMENT
6. Plaintiff Mark Anthony International, SRL ("MAl") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Barbados with its principal place of business at Rendezvous Road, Worthing, Christ Church, Barbados. 7. Plaintiff American Vintage Beverage, Inc. ("AVBI") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 159 South Jackson st. Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98104. 8. MAl licenses the use of its trademarks to AVBI. AVBI is responsible for marketing and distributing CAYMAN JACK products in the United States. 9. For nearly two decades, MAl, directly and through its subsidiaries and agents, has been developing and selling ready-to-drink products throughout Canada and the United States. 10. Upon information and belief, defendant Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in this District at 4040 Civic Center Drive, Suite 528, San Rafael, CA 94903. JDPI sells various JACK DANIEL'S brand whiskeys and some pre-made whiskey-based cocktails under the label "Jack Daniel's Country Cocktails."
~ .!; ~
C "! UJ ~ ~ !l
11. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. Personal jurisdiction over Defendant is proper by virtue of its residing in the District and transacting and doing business in the District. 12. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant resides in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), potential witnesses reside in this District and Defendant regularly conducts business in this District.
13. Through market research, Mark Anthony realized that margaritas are one of the country's most popular drinks, and yet there were virtually no margarita-flavored drinks in the ready-to-drink marketplace. Because it believed there was an opportunity to develop a line of malt-based
-4COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
US ACTIVE-109278078.1
margaritas that would be dominant in the marketplace, Mark Anthony developed the product now known as CAYMAN JACK as a high-end complement to its "Mike's Hard Lemonade: The Classic Margarita" product. The product is a margarita-flavored ready-to-drink malt beverage that was designed to appeal to modem, high-end consumers, including through the use of organic and natural ingredients. CAYMAN JACK beverages are made with organic limes, 100% blue agave nectar, pure cane sugar, and the "purest of malt bases"; they do not contain any artificial lime flavorings or chemicals or high fructose com syrup. This formulation allows Mark Anthony to promote CA YMAN JACK beverages in the ultra premium ready-to-drink market and to attract a more affluent customer base, one concerned with avoiding synthetic food products. 14. Mark Anthony performed extensive consumer testing before naming the CAYMAN JACK product. One ofthe initial names considered was "Black Cayman." Mark Anthony was dissatisfied with that concept, and the name was later changed to CAYMAN JACK. Mark Anthony believed that "Cayman Jack" better evokes the Caribbean theme of the brand and would facilitate the development of a fictional character who could be the representative of the brand. Even after developing the name CAYMAN JACK, Mark Anthony continued to perform consumer surveys to assess the consumer response to the name. In one survey, CA YMAN JACK was tested against Coyote Springs, Del Rey Bay, Black Fin, Catalina Cove, and Casa Miramar as alternative names. Overwhelmingly, consumers responded more favorably to the CAYMAN JACK name; in fact, sixtyfour percent of those surveyed found it to be the most appealing name. Notably, these consumers liked the name because it reminded them of the Caribbean islands or because it sounded exotic and like a tropical drink, not because they associated it in any way with the JACK DANIEL'S brand. 15. Once the name was selected, Mark Anthony further developed the Cayman Jack fictional character. The brand's story is based on the character Cayman Jack, who sailed through the tropical seas in search of the perfect margarita. During his journeys, Cayman Jack discovered the perfect ingredients and then crafted the perfect margarita, made from natural ingredients that are harvested on small farms. The story and motivation of this fictional character is fully integrated into the marketing and packaging of the CA YMAN JACK brand. The picture of a sailboat in the
3 ! 14 o~ ~ 15 i
.g. .~
::r: al
'" ~ -c
-5COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY WDGMENT
US_ACTIVE-10927807B.1
advertisements represents Cayman Jack, searching the Caribbean for the perfect margarita. The character's story has a strong presence on both the website and the cardboard six-pack cartons. 16. The product design highlights the Caribbean theme. The design includes a deep sky-blue color scheme, a lime green color band to reflect the margarita flavor, images of palm trees and, of course, a prominent image of the brand's logo, the cayman - which is a crocodilian common in Central and South America. The bottles are packaged for sale in cardboard six-pack cartons. Each single-serving bottle is short and stubby and has a hand-blown look and feel. This Caribbean motif is carried throughout, from the bottles, to the cartons, to the displays and on through to the advertisements. 17. Cayman Jack test marketing began in Louisiana in December of 20 10, expanded to Houston in January of 20 11, and has since expanded to fifteen states. Cayman Jack has been very successful in the test markets. Therefore, Mark Anthony intends to launch Cayman Jack nationally, and it will be in 75 percent of the nationwide market by June. JDPI's Attempt to Block the CAYMAN JACK Trademark 18. On October 20,2009, Mark Anthony filed Application Serial No. 77/850,939 to register the mark CAYMAN JACK for flavored brewed malt-based alcoholic beverages in the nature of beer and prepared alcoholic cocktails. The application was examined by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and found to be entitled to registration and published in the Official Gazette on March 9, 2010. 19. The fact that the USPTO believed CAYMAN JACK to be entitled to registration is wholly unsurprising given the prevalence of other "Jack" named drinks in the marketplace. The
c.. ...I
~ en ~ 0 w w c:: a ~ ~
J: I- "i
.'" Ji
JACK DANIEL'S mark already coexists with other "Jack" named alcoholic beverages, including PANAMA JACK and CALICO JACK for rums; CACTUS JACK for tequila; PAP A JAC for alcoholic cocktails; YUKON JACK for liqueur; SCRUMPY JACK for cider; DEADEYE JACK, THIRSTY JACK, BLACK JACK STOUT, JACK RABBIT PALE ALE and JACK'S PUMPKIN SPICE ALE for malt beverages; HONEYJACK for mead and hydromel; and BLACKJACK
-6COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
US_ACTNE-109278078.1
PASTURE, WMPIN JACK and BLACKJACK WINES for wines. A sample of these products is shown below:
1.( 1-4"',
;'---1F'I ..
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 , ..~. .
!~Al:~_
I'!.gr.a~
::E en ~
'f'" .:
20. Nonetheless, JDPI filed a notice of opposition on September 3, 2010. Since then, JDPI, through its counsel, has repeatedly reserved all rights to file infringement claims, and represented
-7COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
US__ACTIIIE-10921S078,1
to Plaintiffs' counsel that JDPI will seek to enjoin the sale of CAYMAN JACK if Plaintiffs decide to 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 pursue a national launch, as they are now doing. 21. Not only has JDPI already formally opposed Mark Anthony's trademark application and threatened civil litigation, but Mark Anthony has reason to believe that JDPI's threats are to be taken seriously. JDPI has a history of following up on its threats of litigation. For example, in November of 20 10, after protracted negotiations during the pendency of proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") over the registration of the mark COCONUT JACK, JDPI filed suit against White Rock Distilleries over its use of the marks COCONUT JACK, BANANA JACK, CHERRY JACK, GRAPE JACK, ORANGE JACK, MANGO JACK, PINEAPPLE JACK and CITRUS JACK, all flavored rum drinks. Even though the parties had been engaged in months of negotiations and discovery before the TTAB, it took nearly a year for the federal case to settle (the terms of the settlement agreement are confidential). A review of the marketplace suggests that JDPI
lJ .10
continues to tolerate various marks containing the word JACK for rum drinks as White Rock continues to offer these products for sale (see http://www.whiterockdistilleries.com/our_brands/rums.php?product=38 http://www.whiterockdistilleries.com/our_brands/rums.php?product=116 http://www.whiterockdistilleries.com/our _brands/rums.php?product=39 (CALICO JACK); (SPICED JACK NO.94); (CAKE JACK, CHERRY
JACK, COCONUT JACK, MANGO JACK, PINEAPPLE JACK, TROPICAL JACK and WHIPPED JACK». Moreover, the CALICO JACK mark is still registered in the USPTO (U.S.
Registration Number 3,501,111). 22. The pending proceeding before the TTAB and the ever-present threat of litigation has left a cloud hanging over Mark Anthony and the CAYMAN JACK products. Mark Anthony has made every effort to settle this matter during the pendency of the TTAB opposition, including under terms similar to those to which JDPI has agreed in the past, but JDPI has been unwilling to consider any of Mark Anthony's offers. Thus, only a declaration from this Court will dispel the cloud that hangs over Mark Anthony's desire to launch its CAYMAN JACK product nationally.
US_ACTIVE-109278078.1
(Declaratory Relief of Non-Infringement) 23. Mark Anthony repeats and realleges the allegations above as if set forth herein. 24. JDPI has claimed that Mark Anthony's CAYMAN JACK mark constitutes trademark infringement, and has threatened to bring a lawsuit against Mark Anthony on this basis. An actual, present and justiciable controversy has arisen between JDPI and Mark Anthony concerning the CAYMAN JACK mark. 25. Mark Anthony seeks declaratory judgment from this Court that the marketing and sale of its product does not constitute trademark infringement under the Lanham Act or other impairment of JDPI's JACK DANIEL'S trademark rights under any federal or state law. 26. Mark Anthony's trademark for CAYMAN JACK is in no way confusingly similar to the trademark JACK DANIEL'S. Mark Anthony's manufacture, distribution, sale and promotion of
Q. -J -J
CAYMAN JACK products is not likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive consumers as to the source, origin or sponsorship of the parties' products. Consumers seeing CAYMAN JACK margarita-flavored malt beverages in the marketplace will not believe that it was sponsored by, associated with or otherwise affiliated with JACK DANIEL'S, or vice versa. 27. Mark Anthony's marketing and offering of CAYMAN JACK products for sale does not constitute infringement of the JACK DANIEL'S mark and Mark Anthony is therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment against JDPI, restraining it from any further acts in hindrance of the marketing and sale of CA YMAN JACK.
al Jii
(Declaratory Relief of Registration of the Cayman Jack Mark) 28. Cayman Jack repeats and realleges the allegations above as if set forth herein. 29. JDPI has claimed that Mark Anthony's CAYMAN JACK mark should not be registered, and has filed a trademark opposition proceeding against Mark Anthony on this basis. An actual, present and justiciable controversy has arisen between JDPI and Mark Anthony concerning the CA YMAN JACK mark.
-9COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
US_ACTIVE-l09278078.1
30. The term CAYMAN JACK is not common, generic or simply a combination of two common and generic terms within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1064. 31. On information and belief, JDPI has never considered or sought a trademark in CAYMAN JACK. 32. JDPI's attempts to monopolize the common term JACK, apply it to all purported variants, and prevent others from using it or any combination of the terms that make up the term is contrary to trademark law. 33. Mark Anthony is being, and will continue to be, damaged by JDPI's attempt to block the registration for the mark CA YMAN JACK. 34. Mark Anthony's application for the mark CAYMAN JACK should be approved. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1052 and 1119, the Court should direct the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register CA YMAN JACK as a trademark for flavored brewed malt-based alcoholic beverages in the nature of beer and prepared alcoholic cocktails (Application Serial No .
77/850,939) and/or dismiss JDPI's opposition proceeding with prejudice.
~ l! J
a:: [ ~
~~ If) a.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, by their undersigned attorneys, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 1. Declare that Plaintiffs have the right to manufacture, distribute, market and sell in the
United States a margarita-flavored malt beverage under the trademark CAYMAN JACK, and that such use does not infringe or otherwise impair any of JDPI's trademark rights. 2. Declare that Plaintiffs' CAYMAN JACK mark does not infringe or otherwise impair
under any federal or state law JDPI's JACK DANIEL'S trademark. 3. Direct the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register CA YMAN JACK as
a trademark for flavored brewed malt-based alcoholic beverages in the nature of beer and prepared alcoholic cocktails (Application Serial No. 77/850,939), and/or dismiss JDPI's opposition proceeding with prejudice. 4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
-10COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARK ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL, SRL and AMERICAN VINTAGE BEVERAGE, INC. DATED April 26, 2012 REED SMITH LLP DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
US_ACTIVE-10927B07B.1
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -11COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY mDGMENT
~ l! .10
::r: a! ~~ (J)
More From This UserMarshak v Schaffner Marvelettesbelair v mgaDecision SDNY Personal Jursidcition VenueDecision Gosmile v Levine Re Wo PrjudiceDecision 2d Cir Lv v LyShiga Japan RevisionABC v Aereo ComplaintPenn Response to LvLv to Penn Demand LetterComplaint MeltwaterDecision Secalt Tirak Trade Dress Shapeumg CopyComplaint PreschooliansComplaint GloveablesDraft Discussion Draft CopyComplaint Acme Widget q LogoTtab Cavern Club 2(a)Ttab Cavern Club 2(a)Complaint Cavern Club NevadaBrief False Advertising Calico CornersComplaint SituationComplaint in n Out BoomerangComplaint Skull CandyComplaint Boost Ohio
Complaint Cayman Jack v Jack Daniels by mschwimmer9.9K viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptiondj complaint trademark cayman jack jack danielsdj complaint trademark cayman jack jack danielsInterests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedMarshak v Schaffner Marvelettesby mschwimmerbelair v mgaby mschwimmerDecision SDNY Personal Jursidcition Venueby mschwimmerDecision Gosmile v Levine Re Wo Prjudiceby mschwimmerDecision 2d Cir Lv v Lyby mschwimmerShiga Japan Revisionby mschwimmerABC v Aereo Complaintby mschwimmerPenn Response to Lvby mschwimmerLv to Penn Demand Letterby mschwimmerComplaint Meltwaterby mschwimmerDecision Secalt Tirak Trade Dress Shapeby mschwimmerumg Copyby mschwimmerComplaint Preschooliansby mschwimmerComplaint Gloveablesby mschwimmerDraft Discussion Draft Copyby mschwimmerComplaint Acme Widget q Logoby mschwimmerTtab Cavern Club 2(a)by mschwimmerTtab Cavern Club 2(a)by mschwimmerComplaint Cavern Club Nevadaby mschwimmerBrief False Advertising Calico Cornersby mschwimmerComplaint Situationby mschwimmerComplaint in n Out Boomerangby mschwimmerComplaint Skull Candyby mschwimmerComplaint Boost Ohioby mschwimmerComplaint Varsity Msgby mschwimmerComplaint Rim Bbxby mschwimmerComplaint Ferracuti Law Firmby mschwimmerComplaint Biggest Loserby mschwimmerMore from mschwimmerMarshak v Schaffner Marvelettesbelair v mgaDecision SDNY Personal Jursidcition VenueDecision Gosmile v Levine Re Wo PrjudiceDecision 2d Cir Lv v LyShiga Japan RevisionABC v Aereo ComplaintPenn Response to LvLv to Penn Demand LetterComplaint MeltwaterDecision Secalt Tirak Trade Dress Shapeumg CopyComplaint PreschooliansComplaint GloveablesDraft Discussion Draft CopyComplaint Acme Widget q LogoTtab Cavern Club 2(a)Ttab Cavern Club 2(a)Complaint Cavern Club NevadaBrief False Advertising Calico CornersComplaint SituationComplaint in n Out BoomerangComplaint Skull CandyComplaint Boost OhioComplaint Varsity MsgComplaint Rim BbxComplaint Ferracuti Law FirmComplaint Biggest LoserDecision Tree Freshner Getty