Sugarfina Inc. v. Sweet Pete's - Amended Complaint

Case 2:17-cv-04456-RSWL-JEM Document 26 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 53 Page ID #:243
1 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

Jennifer Trusso Salinas, Bar No. 198579
2 jennifer.salinas@troutmansanders.com
Andre De La Cruz, Bar No. 245175
3 andre.delacruz@troutmansanders.com
Jenny Kim, Bar No. 282562
4 jenny.kim@troutmansanders.com
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
5 Irvine, CA 92614-2545
Telephone: 949.622.2700
6 Facsimile: 949.622.2739
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUGARFINA, INC.
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
T ROUTMAN S ANDERS LLP
12 SUGARFINA, INC., a Delaware Case No.: 2:17-CV-4456 RSWL (JEMx)

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
corporation,
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew

Plaintiff,
14
v. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
15
SWEET PETES, LLC, a Florida FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
16 limited liability company; MARCUS FOR FEDERAL FALSE
LEMONIS, an individual; ML DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND
17 SWEETS, LLC, a Delaware limited UNFAIR COMPETITION, FEDERAL
liability company; PETER TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT,
18 BEHRINGER, an individual; ALLISON FEDERAL COPYRIGHT
BEHRINGER, an individual; ML INFRINGEMENT, STATE UNFAIR
19 BUENA PARK, LLC, a Delaware COMPETITION, COMMON LAW
limited liability company; and ML TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT,
20 FOOD GROUP, LLC, a Delaware PATENT INFRINGEMENT, TRADE
limited liability company, LIBEL, AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY
21
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUGARFINA, INC.S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff Sugarfina, Inc. (Sugarfina) complains and alleges as follows

2 against Defendants Sweet Petes, LLC (Sweet Petes), Marcus Lemonis,
3 ML Sweets, LLC, Peter Behringer, Allison Behringer, ML Buena Park, LLC,
4 dba Farrells (Farrells), and ML Food Group, LLC (collectively,
5 Defendants).
6 NATURE OF THE ACTION
7 1. Sugarfina revolutionized the candy industry when it was founded in
8 2012. Its founders, Joshua Resnick and Rosie ONeill, dreamt of creating a luxury
9 boutique retailer of curated candies and sweets. The inspiration behind Sugarfina
10 was sprouted during a screening of the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate
11 Factory and the simple question: why should kids have all the fun?
12 2. Since 2012, Mr. Resnick and Ms. ONeill have traveled the world to
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 meet with artisan candy-makers and have taste-tested thousands of candies in their
14 search to find the best of the best. Today, this experience has culminated in
15 Sugarfina redefining confectioneries and the associated experience, including
16 painstakingly creating high quality, distinctive packaging for its redefined
17 confectionaries. In the years since its founding, Sugarfina has established itself as
18 offering unique luxury products and a highly engaged customer base.
19 3. Sugarfinas efforts have now grown to a thriving business that
20 employs over 300 people and operates across various commercial channels,
21 including storefronts, e-commerce, wholesale, and corporate partnerships.
22 4. Sugarfinas retail channel focuses on building a footprint at high-end
23 luxury spaces. Currently, Sugarfina operates over twenty-three (23) retail boutiques,
24 with many additional storefronts planned throughout the globe. Sugarfina also
25 operates a series of shop-in-shops at fourteen (14) Nordstroms locations in the
26 United States and Canada. Its wholesale channel caters to premium reseller partners
27 such as Bergdorf Goodman and the Four Seasons Hotels. Its corporate channel
28 caters to institutional clients seeking to personalize packaging or coordinate events.
COMPLAINT
1 5. At present, Sugarfinas distribution channels have been well

2 established and the Sugarfina brand itself has come to be uniquely synonymous with
3 luxury boutique candy. Although international expansion will continue, Sugarfina
4 has already become famous for its luxury items throughout the United States and
5 Canada.
6 6. From inception, Sugarfina has cultivated unmistakable design
7 features in its products and packaging. These design features have been used
8 consistently throughout the course of its business.
9 7. Sugarfina currently has approximately 140 different lines of candy,
10 i.e., products, each presented in a revolutionary and sophisticated presentation and
11 packaging that evidences Sugarfinas commitment to luxury and quality. Among
12 the signature innovations of Sugarfinas branding is its presentation of candy in

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 museum-quality Lucite that emphasizes the artisanal and rarified quality of a

14 gourmet small-portion tasting experience. Because of its innovative packaging and
15 distinctive design, coupled with impeccable attention to the quality of its candy,
16 Sugarfina products continue to thrive.
17 8. Sugarfinas creative achievements have resulted in broad intellectual
18 property protection for Sugarfinas innovations, including design patents, trademarks,
19 copyrights, and trade dress protection. Because of its success, Sugarfinas
20 innovations have been the subject of emulation by its competitors, who have
21 attempted to capitalize on Sugarfinas success by imitating Sugarfinas innovative,
22 elegant, and distinctive products and packaging.
23 9. Among these imitators are Defendants, who have introduced a line
24 of products to compete with Sugarfina products. Defendants are a part of a
25 conglomerate owned and controlled by television personality, Marcus Lemonis.
26 Mr. Lemonis is the star of the CNBC show, The Profit, which follows Mr.
27 Lemonis as he acquires and turns around struggling businesses. Defendants
28 Sweet Petes and Farrells are two of those success stories. Unfortunately, their
-2- COMPLAINT
1 turn around strategy focused on ripping-off Sugarfinas intellectual property.

2 Instead of pursuing independent product development, Defendants have chosen not
3 only to copy Sugarfinas innovative, distinctive, and elegant product and packaging
4 design, but have also copied the types of candy, and protectable names, offered by
5 Sugarfina, in violation of Sugarfinas valuable intellectual property rights.
6 10. As alleged below, Defendants have made and packaged their candy
7 to look like Sugarfinas products through widespread patent, copyright, trademark,
8 and trade dress infringement.
9 11. By this action, Sugarfina seeks to put a stop to Defendants illegal
10 conduct and obtain compensation for the violations that have occurred thus far.
11 THE PARTIES
12 12. Plaintiff Sugarfina is a Delaware corporation having its principal

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 place of business at 3915 West 102nd Street, Inglewood, California 90303.

14 13. Defendant Sweet Petes, LLC is a Florida limited liability company
15 with its principal office at 400 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202.
16 14. On information and belief, Defendant Marcus Lemonis is an
17 individual residing in Illinois. Mr. Lemonis is the star of the reality television show
18 on CNBC The Profit, which has featured both Sweet Petes and Farrells.
19 15. On information and belief, Defendant ML Sweets LLC is a Delaware
20 limited liability company with its principal office at 794 Penllyn Blue Bell Pike,
21 Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422. ML Sweets, LLC is one of the managers of Sweet
22 Petes, LLC. The sole manager of ML Sweets, LLC is Marcus Lemonis.
23 16. On information and belief, Defendant Peter Behringer is an
24 individual that may be contacted at 400 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida
25 32202. Mr. Behringer is the founder of Sweet Petes.
26 17. On information and belief, Defendant Allison Behringer is an
27 individual that may be contacted at 400 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida
28 32202. Ms. Behringer is the wife of Peter Behringer. Ms. Behringer is one of the
-3- COMPLAINT
1 managers of Sweet Petes and one of the managers of Farrells.

2 18. On information and belief, Defendant Farrells (i.e., ML Buena Park,
3 LLC, dba Farrells) is a Delaware limited liability company with a place of business
4 at 8650 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, CA 90620. According to the Orange
5 County Clerk Recorders records, File No. 20176479608, Farrells holds
6 registrations for the fictitious business names of Sweet Petes and Farrells.
7 Sugarfina is informed and believes that Farrells is the franchisor of Farrells-
8 branded restaurants in other locations, including in Brea, California.
9 19. On information and belief, Defendant ML Food Group, LLC is a
10 Delaware limited liability company with a place of business at 794 Penllyn Blue
11 Bell Pike, Suite 219, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422. ML Food Group, LLC is one
12 of the managers of Farrells. The sole manager of ML Food Group, LLC is Marcus
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Lemonis.
14 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at
15 all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant,
16 employee, and/or alter ego of each of the other Defendants, and in doing the things
17 hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course and scope of said agency and/or
18 employment, and with the permission and consent, express and/or implied, of the
19 other Defendants herein. A unity of interest and ownership exists between and
20 among the Defendants such that there is no distinction between or among the
21 Defendants and if the acts alleged herein by one Defendant are treated as the acts of
22 that Defendant alone, an inequitable result will follow. On information and belief,
23 Defendants have utilized these entities to commit the wrongs alleged herein, to
24 shield themselves from personal liability for their conduct, and to hinder, delay,
25 and/or defraud others. In order to effect justice herein, the corporate fiction
26 maintained by Defendants must be pierced, all relief and damages should be
27 awarded against all Defendants jointly and severally, and all acts of the Defendants
28 should be treated as the acts of the other Defendants.
-4- COMPLAINT
1 JURISDICTION
2 21. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1121
3 (action arising under the Lanham Act); 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question); 28
4 U.S.C. 1338(a) (any Act of Congress relating to patents, copyrights, or
5 trademarks); 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) (action asserting claim of unfair competition
6 joined with a substantial and related claim under the trademark laws); and 28
7 U.S.C. 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).
8 22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they
9 have a regularly established place of business in this District, they have committed
10 and continue to commit acts of infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271, 15
11 U.S.C. 1114 and 1125, and 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and place infringing
12 products into the stream of commerce, with the knowledge or understanding that
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 such products are sold in the State of California, including in this District. The acts
14 by Defendants cause injury to Sugarfina within this District.
15 23. Upon information and belief, Defendants also derive substantial
16 revenue from the sale of infringing products within this District, expect their actions
17 to have consequences within this District, derive substantial revenue from interstate
18 and international commerce, and have a regularly established place of business in this
19 District.
20 VENUE
21 24. Venue is proper within this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and
22 1367(a) because Defendants transact business within this district including having a
23 regularly established place of business in this district and offering for sale in this
24 district products that infringe the Sugarfina trade dress, patent, copyrights and
25 trademarks. In addition, venue is proper because Sugarfinas principal place of
26 business is in this district and Sugarfina suffered harm in this district. Moreover, a
27 substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
28 ///
-5- COMPLAINT
1 BACKGROUND
2 Sugarfinas Innovations
3 25. Sugarfina is a luxury candy boutique well recognized for its
4 distinctive products sold under the SUGARFINA brand using novel and original
5 designs in its packaging. Defendants are well aware that Sugarfina is the owner of
6 numerous design patents, trademark registrations, and copyright registrations,
7 including the following (having received a cease and desist letter dated March 15,
8 2016).
9 U.S. Design Patent No. D755,641
10 U.S. Copyright Reg. No. VA0001963483
11 U.S. Copyright Reg. No. VA0001963482
12 26. As a direct result of its innovative and distinctive design and

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 packaging, Sugarfina products have been a great success, and their packaging,
14 colors, and presentation have immediately become uniquely associated with
15 Sugarfina as their source.
16 27. Sugarfina products, with its branded packaging, have been
17 extensively advertised throughout the United States to capitalize on the existing
18 distribution channels, including social media and internet marketing, with the vast
19 majority of the advertisements featuring photographs of the distinctive design of the
20 Sugarfina products.
21 28. In addition, Sugarfinas products have received unsolicited comment
22 and attention in print and social media throughout the world. Each new Sugarfina
23 product is the subject of positive commentary and receives unsolicited praise from
24 independent social commentators. Frequently, these unsolicited commentaries are
25 accompanied by images of various Sugarfina products, including their unique
26 packaging.
27
28
-6- COMPLAINT
1 29. The Sugarfina product design has come to represent and symbolize
2 the superb quality of Sugarfinas products and enjoys substantial goodwill among
3 consumers.
4 30. Sugarfina has received a number of awards for its signature designs
5 and innovations including, but not limited to, the Addy Gold award and the Chain
6 Store Age Breakout Retailer award.
7 Sugarfinas IP Rights
8 Sugarfinas Trademarks
9 31. Defendants products are not merely likely to confuse customers; they
10 are certain to confuse customers, and have actually confused customers, as
11 Defendants use exact or near-exact replicas of Sugarfinas marks, including the
12 following, in connection with the sale and marketing of their products:

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
SUGARFINA
S U I T E 1400
13
14 CUBA LIBRE
15 PEACH BELLINI
16 FRUTTINI
17 CANDY BENTO BOX
18 CANDY CUBE
19 CANDY CONCIERGE
20 32. Defendants use of Sugarfinas marks creates a high likelihood of
21 confusion, as Defendants alter virtually nothing about the marks and intentionally
22 import the entire appearance, sound, and meaning of Sugarfinas marks to profit
23 from the customers association of the marks with Sugarfina. Defendants also
24 timed their use of Sugarfinas marks to follow closely after Sugarfinas first use.
25 33. SUGARFINAattached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
26 U.S. Registration No. 4,677,276. Sugarfina first used the SUGARFINA mark on
27 July 16, 2012, and filed a trademark application for this mark on June 3, 2013.
28
-7- COMPLAINT
1 34. At least as early as 2017, shortly after Plaintiffs filed the original
2 Complaint in this matter, Defendants began using an identical mark to redirect
3 internet traffic to Defendants. More specifically, the protected mark
4 SUGARFINA is used in its entirety by Defendants as an AdWord purchased
5 through Google to prioritize the placement of Defendants advertisements, websites
6 and products. Under the totality of circumstances, including the timing of
7 Defendants purchase of the Sugarfina AdWord and the wholesale infringement
8 of Sugarfinas trade dress, trademark, patent, and copyright rights, the sum effect of
9 Defendants infringing use of the SUGARFINA mark is to confuse customers
10 into finding Sweet Petes when they are looking for Sugarfina.
11 35. CUBA LIBREattached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of
12 U.S. Registration No. 4,943,322. Sugarfina first used the CUBA LIBRE mark on
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 June 6, 2012, and filed a trademark application for this mark on August 14, 2015.
14 Defendants began using the same mark on a similar product shortly after Sugarfina
15 in 2016.
16 36. The protected mark CUBA LIBRE is used in its entirety on
17 Defendants producti.e., with the same appearance and sound. Both products are
18 gummy candiesi.e., with the same meaning. On both products, the mark appears
19 on a die-cut label consisting of a circle and a strip over a clear cube, making the
20 overall look and feel of Defendants use of the mark similar to Sugarfinas.
21 37. PEACH BELLINIattached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy
22 of U.S. Registration No. 4,981752. Sugarfina first used the PEACH BELLINI
23 mark on December 3, 2013, and filed a trademark application for this mark on
24 August 14, 2015. Defendants began using the same mark on a similar product in
25 2016.
26 38. The protected mark PEACH BELLINI is used in its entirety on
28 gummy candiesi.e., with the same meaning. On both products, the mark appears
-8- COMPLAINT
1 on a die-cut label consisting of a circle and a strip over a clear cube, making the
2 overall look and feel of Defendants use of the mark similar to Sugarfinas.
3 39. FRUTTINISugarfina has common law trademark rights in the
4 FRUTTINI mark. Sugarfina began offering Blood Orange FRUTTINI and Italian
5 Lemon FRUTTINI at least as early as August 2015. Defendants began using a
6 similar mark for the same purpose in 2016.
7 40. The protected mark FRUTTINI is used in its entirety, though with a
8 slight spelling variation, on Defendants producti.e., with the same appearance
9 and sound. Both products are gummy candiesi.e., with the same meaning. On
10 both products, the mark appears on a die-cut label consisting of a circle and a strip
11 over a clear cube, making the overall look and feel of Defendants use of the mark
12 similar to Sugarfinas.
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 41. CANDY BENTO BOXattached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct

14 copy of U.S. Registration No. 4,838,646. Sugarfina first used the CANDY BENTO
15 BOX mark on November 23, 2013, and filed a trademark application for this
16 mark on January 15, 2015. Defendants began calling their candy boxes candy
17 bento boxes and bento boxes in 2016.
18 42. Again, the protected mark CANDY BENTO BOX is used in its
19 entirety on Defendants producti.e., with the same appearance and sound. Both
20 products are candy boxes in which a number of smaller CANDY CUBES are
21 nested withini.e., with the same meaning.
22 43. CANDY CUBE attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy
23 of U.S. Application No. 87/264,489. Sugarfina began using CANDY CUBE on
24 or around 2013 and filed a trademark application for this mark on December 11,
25 2016. Sugarfina also has common law trademark rights in the CANDY CUBE
26 mark. Sweet Petes began using the same mark on identical packaging in 2016.
27 44. The protected mark CANDY CUBE is used in its entirety on
-9- COMPLAINT
1 packaging for candiesi.e., with the same meaning. On both products, the mark
2 appears on a die-cut label consisting of a circle and a strip over a clear cube,
3 making the overall look and feel of Defendants use of the mark similar to
4 Sugarfinas.
5 45. CANDY CONCIERGESugarfina has common law trademark
6 rights in the CANDY CONCIERGE mark. Sugarfina began calling its customer
7 service team the CANDY CONCIERGE in 2013. Defendants began using the
8 same mark for the identical purpose in 2016.
9 46. The protected mark CANDY CONCIERGE is used in its entirety on
10 Sweet Petes websitei.e., with the same appearance and sound. Both uses of
11 CANDY CONCIERGE refer to the respective companies customer service team
12 i.e., with the same meaning.

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Sugarfinas Trade Dress

14 47. Sugarfina holds trade dress protection in the design and appearance
15 of all of its confectionaries offerings, together with their distinctive product
16 packaging.
17 48. Sugarfinas product packaging and presentation are radically
18 different from the candy stores that preceded it. It has a distinctive presentation and
19 appearancea total image and overall appearance that is unique, including features
20 such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, and sales
21 techniques. As shown below, the end result is a luxury product that is accessible
22 and visually appealing to the ordinary observer. Sugarfinas product design
23 immediately became closely associated with Sugarfina.
24
25
26
27
28
- 10 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11 - COMPLAINT
1 49. Each of these elements of the Sugarfina products is distinctive and

2 serves to identify Sugarfina as the source of its products.
3 50. The following elements of Sugarfinas product packaging designs
4 comprise the trade dress at issue in this case (the Sugarfina Trade Dress):
5 the solid borderline around the product package
6 the use of a magnetic latch
7 a rectangular product package with minimal lettering;
8 the inside bottom surface of the product package dominated by a series
9 of cube wells or trays;
10 the series of cube wells each being spaced from one another within
11 the product package; and
12 a series of clear cubes containing candy product that each reside in a

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 corresponding cube well and are immediately visible upon opening the box.
14 51. Despite being on clear notice of infringement of these and other
15 intellectual property rights owned by Sugarfina, Defendants have capitalized on
16 Sugarfinas distinctive, novel, and original designs that customers have come to
17 associate with the high quality and innovative candy products that Sugarfina offers.
18 52. Defendants have purposely taken steps to increase their similarity to
19 Sugarfina, and to encourage consumers to confuse the two brands to profit from the
20 goodwill Sugarfina has acquired through its careful and diligent marketing.
21 Sugarfinas Design Patents
22 53. Sugarfina has protected its innovative designs and packaging through
23 design patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The
24 Sugarfina design patents cover the many famous ornamental features of Sugarfina
25 candy, such as the spaced cube arrangement, the spaced cube receiving wells, and
26 the distinctive use of a box to hold the clear cubes.
27
28
- 12 - COMPLAINT
1 54. Among others, Sugarfina owns all right, title, and interest in and to
2 the asserted U.S. Design Pat. No. D755,641, titled Packaging, a true and correct
3 copy of which is attached as Exhibit 6.
4 Sugarfinas Copyrights
5 55. Sugarfina has protected its innovative designs and packaging through
6 copyrights registered with the United States Copyright Office. The Sugarfina
7 copyrights cover the same famous and original ornamental features of Sugarfina
8 candy packaging as the design patents, such as the spaced cube arrangement, the
9 spaced cube receiving wells, and the distinctive use of a box to hold the clear cubes.
10 56. Sugarfina owns all right, title, and interest in and to each of the
11 following asserted copyrights, true and correct copies of which are attached as
12 Exhibits 7 and 8: Reg. Nos. VA0001963482 and VA0001963483.

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Defendants Infringing Products

14 57. Defendants have imported into or sold in the United States the
15 following products, each of which infringes one or more of Sugarfinas Intellectual
16 Property Rights: Cuba Libre Cocktail, Ooh So Organic Peach Bellini, Candy
17 Bento Box or Bento box, Passion Fruitini, and Candy Cube, among others
18 (collectively, the Accused Products). Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct
19 copy of the Accused Products.
20 58. Rather than innovate and develop its own packaging and unique style
21 for its candy products, Defendants chose to copy Sugarfinas innovative style in
22 these infringing products.
23 Sweet Petes
24 59. Sweet Petes had many options in developing its candy. Indeed,
25 Peterbrooke Chocolatier (a predecessor entity to Sweet Petes) had sold candy for
26 as many as 30 years, but never embodied the same combination of design elements
27 of Sugarfinas presentation.
28
- 13 - COMPLAINT
1 60. Sweet Petes was a failing business prior to its radical transformation
2 into a Sugarfina copycat. As Peter Behringer and Alison Behringer admitted in an
3 episode of the CNBC show, The Profit, published on March 28, 2014, at
4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-kHNxz5NFI&t=178s, Sweet Petes lost
5 $17,000 that year and lost $3,000 the previous year, even though Sweet Petes was
6 not paying Peter Behringer even a fair wage of $12.00 per hour as an employee.1
7 Peter Behringer and Alison Behringer made only $10,000 combined in 2013.
8 61. Also during this time period before 2014, none of Sweet Petes
9 products were marketed using Sugarfinas intellectual property. The products
10 shown in the episode of The Profit are markedly different from the products sold by
11 Sweet Petes today, and used generic packaging with an entirely different look and
12 feel from Sugarfinas distinctive packaging. In contrast to Sugarfinas clean lines,

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 disciplined color palette, and subtle details underscoring the sophisticated tastes of
14 adult customers, Sweet Petes prior look of carnival motifs of oversized lollipops,
15 chalkboard signage, and wild patterns and colors have the aesthetic of a childrens
16 candy store.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-kHNxz5NFI&t=178s, at 6:25 to 7:00.
- 14 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62. Marcus Lemonis was undoubtedly aware of Sugarfina when Sweet
26
Petes undertook to change its packaging and motif. Indeed, in February 2015,
27
Marcus Lemonis visited Sugarfinas website and opted-in to receive Sugarfinas
28
- 15 - COMPLAINT
1 marketing materials. Branden Stanley, the Marketing Director at Marcus Lemonis

2 LLC for Sweet Petes and Farrells, followed suit by signing-up for Sugarfinas
3 marketing materials shortly after she joined the company in September 2016. They
4 both continue to receive those materials, but have never made a purchase with
5 Sugarfina.com.
6 63. Sweet Petes experienced a dramatic turnaround in success and
7 profitability after it began infringing Sugarfinas trade dress, trademarks, patent,
8 and copyrights. In an episode of the Shark Tank Podcast, published on September
9 21, 2016, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwpHRzdl5T4, Peter Behringer
10 stated that Sweet Petes was earning revenue of $260,000 per month (or $3,120,000
11 per year), up from $7,500 per month (or $90,000 per year) before 2014.2 The
12 newly revamped Sweet Petes is shown to rely heavily on several design elements
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 of Sugarfinas distinctive packaging and marketing.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwpHRzdl5T4, at 27:05 to 27:32.
- 16 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 64. Thus, without investing any of the resources or innovation required
23 in developing a strong brand identity and intellectual property portfolio, Sweet
24 Petes reaped all the benefits of Sugarfinas investment and goodwill in the market.
25 Farrells
26 65. Farrells has sold candy since 2009. As with Sweet Petes, Farrells
27 candy offerings and marketing were entirely dissimilar from Sugarfinas. That all
28
- 17 - COMPLAINT
1 changed, however, with Marcus Lemoniss involvement. The Farrells episode

2 of The Profit aired on August 23, 2016 (available at
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulLQ_adBbuI). In that episode, Marcus
4 Lemonis described Farrells pre-2016 candy store as resembling a local
5 convenience store.3 He further opined that the candy store was key to the
6 marketing, and ultimately the success, of Farrells because its the first thing you
7 see when you come into the store.4
8 66. Prior to Farrells misappropriation of Sugarfinas marketing and
9 branding in its redesigned candy store, Farrells candy store was a failing business.
10 Farrells admitted that it made only about $2,000 in candy per month, which Mr.
11 Lemonis described as terrible.5
12 67. Also during this time period before 2016, none of Farrells products
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 were marketed using Sugarfinas intellectual property. The products shown in the
14 episode of The Profit are markedly different from the products sold by Farrells
15 today, and used generic packaging with an entirely different look and feel from
16 Sugarfinas distinctive packaging. Here are pictures from the episode of Farrells
17 candy offerings before Marcus Lemoniss involvement.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
27 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulLQ_adBbuI, at 8:38.
4
See id. at 9:17.
28 5
See id. at 9:38.
- 18 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 20 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 21 - COMPLAINT
1 68. As depicted below, after its turn around and re-launch, the newly
2 revamped Farrells is shown to rely heavily on several design elements that have
3 become strongly associated with Sugarfina and established good will with the
4 purchasing public. Similar to the formula for Sweet Petes turn-around, the
5 Farrells recipe for success is based in large part on utilizing Sugarfinas signature
6 packaging, motif, and look and feel.
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 22 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 69. In an episode of the Shark Tank Podcast, published on September 8,

14 2016, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywA23GXdX_0, Farrells employee
15 and part-owner Travis Lee attributed Farrells newfound success to the very
16 branding initiatives that Sweet Petes stole from Sugarfina: Allison and Pete have
17 been a major part of in this rebranding of Farrells. . . . What they are most famous
18 for are their cubes and their sea salt caramels and their fine chocolates, and now
19 we have all of that stuff in our Farrells location.6 Mr. Lee further stated that the
20 infringing Farrells-branded candy cubes were available for sale online and through
21 Sweet Petes stores.7 As discussed, they are also now available directly on Farrells
22 own websites and in its restaurants.
23 Infringement of Sugarfinas Trademarks
24 70. In addition to copying the Sugarfina Trade Dress, Sweet Petes has
25 also copied and sells (and Farrells sells) numerous products in which Sugarfina has
26 valid trademark rights, as shown below:
27 6
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywA23GXdX_0, at 6:14.
28 7
See id. at 15:56.
- 23 - COMPLAINT
1 a. CUBA LIBRE
2
Sugarfinas Original Use Defendants Infringing Use
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14 b. PEACH BELLINI
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 24 - COMPLAINT
1 c. FRUTTINI
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
d. CANDY BENTO BOX

S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 25 - COMPLAINT
1 e. CANDY CUBE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
f. CANDY CONCIERGE
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545

5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 g. SUGARFINA
24 71. In addition, Defendants have deliberately taken steps to misappropriate
25 Sugarfinas valuable brand by redirecting customers searching for Sugarfina
26 products on the internet to Defendants advertisements, websites, and products. As
27 shown below, by purchasing the AdWord SUGARFINA to prioritize the
28 placement of Defendants advertisements following a Google search for

- 26 - COMPLAINT
1 SUGARFINA, Defendants invite consumer confusion and admit that they make
2 knowing efforts to tie Sweet Petes to Sugarfina and its goodwill, and purposefully
3 to market Sweet Petes products to Sugarfinas customers and potential customers.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 72. Defendants use of various trade names that infringe Sugarfinas
11 trademark rights, particularly in combination with its adoption of a trade dress that
12 copies the Sugarfina Trade Dress as described below, is likely to cause confusion or
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
mistake, or to deceive consumers, purchasers, and others into thinking that Sweet
S U I T E 1400
13
14 Petes and Farrells products are Sugarfina products, or that they are sponsored by
15 or affiliated with Sugarfina, when they are not.
16 73. Sugarfinas goodwill among consumers is closely tied to its position as
17 an outlier in confectioners productsthat of luxury and sophistication.
18 Defendants flagrant and relentless copying of Sugarfinas intellectual property
19 rights in its candy products not only allows Defendants to benefit from Sugarfinas
20 investment, but it also threatens to diminish the very important goodwill that
21 Sugarfina has cultivated with its products. The value of such goodwill is evident in
22 part in the success that resulted from Defendants wrongful appropriation: after
23 stealing Sugarfinas aesthetic and branding strategies, Sweet Petes was resurrected
24 from a failing company that lost $17,000 per year to a profitable company
25 generating an annualized revenue of $3,120,000.
26 74. Sugarfinas efforts to address Defendants pervasive copying of
27 Sugarfina's innovations and intellectual property directly with Defendants have
28 been unsuccessful. Those efforts included multiple cease and desist letters to Sweet

- 27 - COMPLAINT
1 Petes and follow-up telephone calls to both Peter Behringer and Marcus Lemonis.
2 Defendants chose to infringe Sugarfinas patent, copyright, trade dress, and
3 trademark rights through the design, packaging and promotion of their candy
4 products, and they did so willfully to trade upon the goodwill that Sugarfina has
5 developed in connection with its luxury branded products.
6 Infringement of Sugarfinas Trade Dress
7 75. Sugarfina is informed and believes that Defendants began producing,
8 selling, and marketing its copycat products after Sugarfinas first use of the asserted
9 trade dress.
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 28 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 29 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 30 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 76. Each of Defendants Accused Products embodies a combination of
23 several elements of the Sugarfina Trade Dress identified above, namely, a product
24 configuration with a total image and overall appearance that is unique, including
25 features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, and
26 sales techniques.
27 77. Instead of complying with Sugarfinas demand that Defendants cease
28 their unlawful activities, Defendants escalated their unlawful activities and engaged
- 31 - COMPLAINT
1 in a coordinated campaign to harm Sugarfina in the marketplace. Finding the

2 wholesale theft of Sugarfinas intellectual property to be insufficient, Defendants
3 also used Mr. Lemoniss public platform as a television celebrity to stoke anger
4 against Sugarfina and to promote the sale by Sweet Petes of the very items at issue
5 here. As shown below, Defendants widely broadcasted on Facebook, without any
6 basis, that Sugarfina has a habit of suing others.
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 32 - COMPLAINT
1 78. These statements are demonstrably false and made in bad faith, as
2 this present action against Defendants is the first infringement litigation Sugarfina
3 has ever filed. In fact, this present action against Defendant is the first time
4 Sugarfina has ever been the plaintiff in any kind of litigation.
5 79. To date, these statements have been disseminated to Mr. Lemoniss
6 approximately 830,000 Facebook followers, and to Sweet Petes approximately
7 46,500 Facebook followers.
8 Infringement of Sugarfinas Patent
9 80. Sugarfina was selling its designer three-by-three cell candy bento
10 boxes long before Defendants. An example is shown below.
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 81. In 2014, Sugarfina filed a design patent application covering its
23 unique packaging, such as the packaging shown above. That design patent
24 application issued on May 10, 2016, as U.S. Design Patent No. D755,641 (the 641
25 Patent), and is titled Packaging.
26 82. The 641 Patent claims [t]he ornamental design for a packaging, as
27 shown and described in the patent. FIG. 1 of the 641 Patent is reproduced below.
28 FIG. 1 depicts an exploded perspective view of the patented design.
- 33 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
83. FIG. 2 of the 641 Patent is reproduced below. FIG. 2 depicts a
14
perspective view of the patented design.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
84. FIGS. 34 of the 641 Patent are reproduced below. FIG. 3 depicts a
25
front view of the patented design. FIG. 4 depicts a rear view of the patented design.
26
27
28
- 34 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 85. FIG. 5 of the 641 Patent is reproduced below. FIG. 5 depicts a top
11 view of the patented design.
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 86. FIG. 6 of the 641 Patent is reproduced below. FIG. 6 depicts a side
20 view of the patented design.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 35 - COMPLAINT
1 87. Defendants began marketing a copycat product in at least 2015, a

2 sample of which is shown below.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
88. An ordinary observer of Defendants candy packaging and Sugarfinas

5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
patented design, giving such attention that a candy purchaser usually gives, would
14
find the two designs to be substantially the same. The 641 Patent claims a
15
packaging including transparent cubes arranged in three-by-three cells spaced apart
16
and nested fully within a rectangular box with high, straight walls, with a folding
17
cover top with a pull-tab at the end. As shown above, Defendants design also
18
includes transparent cubes arranged in three-by-three cells spaced apart and nested
19
fully within a rectangular box with high, straight walls, with a folding cover top
20
with a pull-tab at the end. An ordinary observer would recognize that Defendants
21
design is substantially the same as the patented design in the 641 Patent. The
22
overall impression of the two designs is substantially the same.
23
89. Further, an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art would be
24
deceived into believing the Defendants design is the same as the design patented in
25
the 641 Patent. Of the many prior art candy packaging types, an ordinary observer
26
would recognize that none of the prior art candy packaging types include, for
27
instance, the three-by-three cells of transparent cubes spaced apart and nested fully
28
- 36 - COMPLAINT
1 within a rectangular box with high, straight walls, with a folding cover top with a
2 pull-tab at the end as patented in the 641 Patent.
3 90. Indeed, it is axiomatic that the 641 Patent is infringed by
4 Defendants design because in the eye of an ordinary observer, Defendants design
5 is substantially the same as the claimed design in the 641 Patent. And indeed, such
6 marketplace confusion has already been shown, an example of which is below.
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Infringement of Sugarfinas Copyrights
24
91. In addition to the aforementioned design patent protections,
25
Sugarfina also has copyright protections for its three-piece designer candy boxes
26
and its designer candy bento boxes at Reg. Nos. VA0001963482 and
27
VA0001963483.
28
- 37 - COMPLAINT
1 92. Defendants have had access to the copyrighted candy boxes because
2 Sugarfina has been selling and marketing them to the public, in the same industry
3 and using the same marketing channels as Defendants, since at least as early as their
4 copyright registrations in 2013.
5 93. In a blatant attempt to copy Sugarfina, Defendants designed and
6 developed near exact imitations of Sugarfinas registered works.
7 94. At least as early as 2016, Defendants began actively selling these
8 infringing products to retailers and unwitting consumers. Defendants infringing
9 products are strikingly similar imitations of Sugarfinas protected products.
10 Defendants copied all the original and distinctive qualities of Sugarfinas products,
11 including the configuration of three-by-three cells or three cells of transparent cubes
12 spaced apart and nested fully within a rectangular box with high, straight walls; the
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 use of a die-cut labels on the clear cubes within the outer box; and specific graphic
14 elements designed by Sugarfina, such as the prints, patterns, and colors imprinted
15 on the boxes and labels.
16 95. Defendants have no license from Sugarfina to make replicas of
17 Sugarfinas registered original works. On the contrary, at least as early as March
18 15, 2016, Sugarfina demanded that Defendants cease their infringing activities.
19 Defendants refused to comply and continued knowingly and willfully to create,
20 market, and distribute products infringing Sugarfinas copyrights.
21 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
22 (Trade Dress Infringement)
23 (Lanham Act Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
24 96. Sugarfina incorporates and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this
25 Complaint as though set forth in full.
26 97. Sugarfina is the owner of all right and title to the distinctive
27 Sugarfina Trade Dress. The Sugarfina Trade Dress, as embodied in Sugarfina
28 products, has acquired secondary meaning, and is not functional. In addition, the
- 38 - COMPLAINT
1 Sugarfina Trade Dress, embodied in the packaging for the Sugarfina products, is
2 inherently distinctive and not functional.
3 98. In addition, based on extensive and consistent advertising, promotion
4 and sales throughout the United States, the Sugarfina Trade Dress has acquired
5 distinctiveness and enjoys secondary meaning among consumers, identifying
6 Sugarfina as the source of these products.
7 99. Sugarfinas extensive promotion of the distinctive Sugarfina Trade
8 Dress has resulted in Sugarfinas acquisition of valuable, legally protected rights in
9 the Sugarfina Trade Dress as well as considerable customer goodwill.
10 100. Defendants line of products has misappropriated the Sugarfina
11 Trade Dress by mimicking a combination of several elements of that trade dress.
12 The manufacture and distribution of Defendants products with packaging and

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 product design features that mimic a combination of several elements of the

14 Sugarfina Trade Dress is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
15 deceive the consumer as to the affiliation, connection or association of Defendants
16 with Sugarfina, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval by Sugarfina of
17 Defendants goods, services or commercial activities.
18 101. Defendants actions constitute unfair competition and false
19 designation or origin in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
20 1125(a).
21 102. Defendants knew of the Sugarfina Trade Dress when they designed
22 their products, and at least as early as March 15, 2016, have refused to change their
23 product or packaging design in response to Sugarfinas request. Accordingly,
24 Defendants infringement has been and continues to be intentional, willful and
25 without regard to Sugarfinas rights in the Sugarfina Trade Dress.
26 103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful acts and
27 practices, including those set forth above, Defendants have caused, are causing, and
28 unless immediately enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause immediate and
- 39 - COMPLAINT
1 irreparable harm to Sugarfina, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for
2 which it is entitled to injunctive relief.
3 104. Sugarfina is informed and believes, and on that basis, alleges, that
4 Defendants have gained profits by virtue of their infringement of the Sugarfina
5 Trade Dress.
6 105. Sugarfina also has sustained damages as a direct and proximate
7 result of Defendants infringement of the Sugarfina Trade Dress in an amount to be
8 proven at trial.
9 106. Because Defendants actions have been willful, Sugarfina is entitled
10 to treble its actual damages or Defendants profits, whichever is greater, and to an
11 award of costs, and, this being an exceptional case, reasonable attorneys fees
12 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14 (Federal Trademark Infringement)
15 (15 U.S.C. 1114)
18 108. Sugarfina owns three federal trademark registrations for the
19 distinctive naming of several of its product lines, i.e., the Registered Trademarks.
20 109. The Defendants line of products has infringed the Registered
21 Trademarks by using identical names in Defendants products.
22 110. Defendants use of its infringing product lineup is likely to cause
23 confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive the consumer as to the affiliation,
24 connection or association of Defendants with Sugarfina, or as to the origin,
25 sponsorship, or approval by Sugarfina of Defendants goods, services or
26 commercial activities.
27
28
- 40 - COMPLAINT
1 111. Defendants use of the infringing product lineup enables Defendants

2 to benefit unfairly from Sugarfinas reputation and success, thereby giving
3 Defendants sales and commercial value they otherwise would not have.
4 112. Before Defendants first use of the infringing product lineup,
5 Defendants were aware of Sugarfinas business and had either actual notice and
6 knowledge, or constructive notice of, Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks.
7 113. Defendants unauthorized use of the infringing product lineup is
8 likely, if not certain, to deceive or to cause confusion or mistake among consumers
9 as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of Defendants products and/or to cause
10 confusion or mistake as to any affiliation, connection or association between
11 Sugarfina and Defendants, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(a).
12 114. Sugarfina is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Defendants infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks as described

14 herein has been and continues to be intentional, willful and without regard to
15 Sugarfinas rights.
17 Defendants have gained profits by virtue of their infringement of Sugarfinas
18 Registered Trademarks.
19 116. Sugarfina will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from
20 Defendants infringement of Registered Trademarks insofar as Sugarfinas
21 invaluable goodwill is being eroded by continuing infringement.
22 117. Sugarfina has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the
23 loss of business reputation, customers, market position, confusion of potential
24 customers and goodwill flowing from Defendants infringing activities. Pursuant to
25 15 U.S.C. 1116, Sugarfina is entitled to an injunction against Defendants
26 continuing infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks. Unless enjoined,
27 Defendants will continue their infringing conduct.
28
- 41 - COMPLAINT
1 118. Because Defendants actions have been committed with intent to

2 damage Sugarfina and to confuse and deceive the public, Sugarfina is entitled to
3 treble its actual damages or Defendants profits, whichever is greater, and to an
4 award of costs and, this being an exceptional case, reasonable attorneys fees
5 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) and 1117(b).
6 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7 (Common Law Trademark Infringement)
8 (15 U.S.C. 1125)
11 120. Sugarfina has prior rights in Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and
12 other unregistered marks, including SUGARFINA, CUBA LIBRE, PEACH

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 BELLINI, FRUTTINI, CANDY BENTO BOX, CANDY CUBE, and CANDY

14 CONCIERGE.
15 121. Defendants product lineup has infringed Sugarfinas Registered
16 Trademarks and unregistered common law marks by using identical or similar
17 names in Defendants products.
18 122. Defendants use of its infringing naming convention is likely to
19 cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive the consumer as to the
20 affiliation, connection or association of Defendants with Sugarfina, or as to the
21 origin, sponsorship, or approval by Sugarfina of Defendants goods, services or
22 commercial activities.
23 123. Defendants use of the infringing product lineup enables Defendants
24 to benefit unfairly from Sugarfinas reputation and success, thereby giving
25 Defendants sales and commercial value they otherwise would not have.
26 124. Prior to Defendants first use of the infringing marks, Defendants
27 were aware of Sugarfinas business and had either actual notice and knowledge, or
28 constructive notice of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and other unregistered
- 42 - COMPLAINT
1 marks.
2 125. Defendants unauthorized use of the infringing product lineup is
3 likely, if not certain, to deceive or to cause confusion or mistake among consumers
4 as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of Defendants product lineup and/or to
5 cause confusion or mistake as to any affiliation, connection or association between
6 Sugarfina and Defendants, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
8 Defendants infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and unregistered
9 marks, as described herein, has been and continues to be intentional, willful and
10 without regard to Sugarfinas rights in its Registered Trademarks and unregistered
11 common law marks.
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Defendants have gained profits by virtue of their infringement of Sugarfinas

14 Registered Trademarks and unregistered common law marks.
15 128. Sugarfina will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from
16 Defendants infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and unregistered
17 common law marks insofar as Sugarfinas invaluable goodwill is being eroded by
18 Defendants continuing infringement. Sugarfina has no adequate remedy at law to
19 compensate it for the loss of business reputation, customers, market position,
20 confusion of potential customers and goodwill flowing from the Defendants
21 infringing activities.
22 129. Sugarfina is entitled to an injunction against Defendants continuing
23 infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and unregistered common law
24 marks. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue its infringing conduct.
25 130. Because Defendants actions have been committed with intent to
26 damage Sugarfina and to confuse and deceive the public, Sugarfina is entitled to
27 treble its actual damages or Defendants profits, whichever is greater, and to an
28 award of costs and, this being an exceptional case, reasonable attorneys fees
- 43 - COMPLAINT
1 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) and 1117(b).

2 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
3 (Unfair Business Practices California Business and Professions Code
4 17200, et seq.)
7 132. The acts of Defendants described above constitute fraudulent and
8 unlawful business practices as defined by California Business & Professions Code
9 17200, et seq.
10 133. Sugarfina has valid and protectable prior rights in the Sugarfina
11 Trade Dress, and the Registered Trademarks. The Sugarfina Trade Dress identifies
12 Sugarfina as the source of its candy products. The Sugarfina Trade Dress is
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 inherently distinctive, and, through Sugarfinas long use, has come to be associated
14 solely with Sugarfina as the source of the products on which it is used.
15 134. Defendants use of its infringing trade dress is likely to cause
16 confusion as to the source of Defendants products and is likely to cause others to
17 be confused or mistaken into believing that there is a relationship between
18 Defendants and Sugarfina or that Defendants products are affiliated with or
19 sponsored by Sugarfina.
20 135. The above-described acts and practices by Defendants are likely to
21 mislead or deceive the general public and therefore constitute fraudulent business
22 practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.
23 136. The above-described acts constitute unfair competition and trade
24 dress and trademark infringement under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15
25 U.S.C. 1125(a), and trademark infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Act,
26 15 U.S.C. 1114, and are therefore unlawful acts in violation of California
27 Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.
28
- 44 - COMPLAINT
1 137. Defendants acted willfully and intentionally in designing its

2 infringing trade dress and product packaging, with full knowledge of Sugarfinas
3 prior rights in the distinctive Sugarfina Trade Dress, Registered Trademarks, and its
4 common law trademarks, and with an intent to cause confusion or mistake or to
5 deceive customers into believing that there is an affiliation between Defendants and
6 Sugarfina or between Defendants products and Sugarfinas products.
7 138. The unlawful and fraudulent business practices of Defendants
8 described above present a continuing threat to, and is meant to deceive members of,
9 the public in that Defendants desire to promote their products by wrongfully trading
10 on the goodwill of the Sugarfina Trade Dress, the Registered Trademarks, and its
11 common law trademarks.
12 139. As a direct and proximate result of these acts, Defendants have

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 received, and will continue to profit from, the strength of the Sugarfina Trade
14 Dress, the Registered Marks, Sugarfinas common law trademarks.
15 140. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct,
16 Sugarfina has been injured in fact and has lost money and profits, and such harm
17 will continue unless Defendants acts are enjoined by the Court.
18 141. Sugarfina has no adequate remedy at law for Defendants continuing
19 violation of Sugarfinas rights.
20 142. Defendants should be required to restore to Sugarfina any and all
21 profits earned as a result of their unlawful and fraudulent actions, or provide
22 Sugarfina with any other restitutionary relief as the Court deems appropriate.
23 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
24 (Infringement of the 641 Patent)
25 (35 U.S.C. 271)
28
- 45 - COMPLAINT
1 144. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the 641 Patent
2 by using, selling and/or offering to sell in the United States, and/or importing into
3 the United States one or more of Defendants infringing products identified in this
4 Complaint, which embody the design covered by the 641 Patent, in violation of 35
5 U.S.C. 271.
6 145. On information and belief, Defendants infringement of the 641
7 Patent has taken place with full knowledge of the patent and is willful, deliberate,
8 and intentional, and therefore gives rise to an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C.
9 285.
10 146. Defendants infringement of one or more claims of the 641 Patent
11 has injured Sugarfina, the precise amount of which cannot be ascertained at this
12 time. Sugarfina is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Defendants infringement, which in no event can be less than a reasonable royalty.

14 147. Defendants have caused Sugarfina substantial damages and
15 irreparable injury by their infringement of one or more claims of the 641 Patent,
16 for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Sugarfina will continue to suffer
17 damages and irreparable injury unless and until Defendants infringement is
18 enjoined by this Court.
19 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
20 (Copyright Infringement)
21 (17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq.)
24 149. Sugarfina is the owner of exclusive rights under copyright with
25 respect to the three-piece designer candy box and the designer candy bento box,
26 Reg. Nos. VA0001963482 and VA0001963483.
27
28
- 46 - COMPLAINT
1 150. Sugarfina has never granted to Defendants any license to make or

2 market any unauthorized copies of, or derivative works based on, Sugarfinas
3 products or registered works.
4 151. By means of the actions complained of herein, Defendants have
5 infringed and will continue to infringe Sugarfinas copyright in and relating to its
6 registered works by creating, reproducing, distributing, selling, and/or offering for
7 sale infringing products and product packaging containing strikingly similar
8 reproductions of the registered works without authorization from Sugarfina.
9 152. Sugarfina is entitled to an injunction restraining Defendants, and all
10 persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in further acts in violation of the
11 copyright laws.
12 153. Sugarfina is further entitled to recover from Defendants the damages

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Sugarfina has sustained, and will sustain, as a result of Defendants wrongful acts
14 in an amount to be proven at trial. Sugarfina is further entitled to recover from
15 Defendants any gains, profits, and advantages Defendants have obtained as a result
16 of their wrongful acts.
17 154. Sugarfina is also entitled to damages, pursuant to the Copyright Act
18 of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq., for Defendants willful and continued
19 infringement of the registered works and attorneys fees.
20 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
21 (Trade Libel)
24 156. On June 17, 2017, Mr. Lemonis and Sweet Petes, in coordination
25 with each other and the other Defendants, published identical posts on Facebook
26 referring to this instant lawsuit: Its total bs and based on public records they
27 [Sugarfina] have a habit of doing it to others. These posts, hereinafter referred to
28 as the Defamatory Comments, were disseminated and published to Mr.
- 47 - COMPLAINT
1 Lemoniss approximately 830,000 Facebook followers and Sweet Petes

2 approximately 46,500 Facebook followers.
3 157. The Defamatory Comments were made of and concerning
4 Sugarfinas business and were so understood by those who read them. Sugarfina
5 relies heavily on its reputation for fair dealing and originality in holding itself out as
6 a leading innovator in the confectionary industry. Sugarfinas intellectual property
7 is unique and proprietary to Sugarfina and carefully enforced so as to maintain
8 Sugarfinas valuable brand equity.
9 158. The Defamatory Comments disparaged Sugarfina in that they impute
10 to Sugarfina a lack of honesty and integrity in its business dealings and accuse it of
11 engaging in frivolous litigation in order to vex and harass its competitors to obtain
12 an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 159. On information and belief, the Defamatory Comments by Mr.

14 Lemonis and Sweet Petes have been repeated by Defendants to others on other
15 occasions, and/or the other Defendants have ratified, endorsed, authorized or
16 otherwise consented to such comments. The above-described comments were
17 spoken without justification and without privilege.
18 160. The Defamatory Comments are false.
19 161. Defendants communicated the Defamatory Comments with
20 knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.
21 162. As a proximate result of Defendants publication of the Defamatory
22 Comments, prospective customers have been deterred from purchasing products
23 from Sugarfina and from otherwise dealing with Sugarfina.
24 163. By making the Defamatory Comments concerning Sugarfinas
25 originality, integrity, and/or competitive strategies, Defendants acted with malice,
26 oppression and fraud in that they were motivated by ill will, hatred toward
27 Sugarfina and an attempt to seek an unfair competitive business advantage.
28 Sugarfina seeks an award of punitive damages based upon this outrageous conduct.
- 48 - COMPLAINT
1 On information and belief, Defendants are guilty of oppression, fraud or malice

2 within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294 and authorized, ratified,
3 or performed the acts, entitling Sugarfina to punitive or exemplary damages in an
4 amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to make an example of them to the
5 community.
6 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7 (Civil Conspiracy)
10 165. Defendants entered into an agreement, combination, understanding
11 or scheme with the intent of misappropriating Sugarfinas valuable goodwill in the
12 marketplace and deceiving the purchasing public into believing that Defendants
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 products were associated with and or sponsored by or affiliated with Sugarfina.

14 166. Under the direction of Mr. Lemonis, who controls Sweet Petes and
15 Farrells, Defendants engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine and usurp
16 Sugarfinas reputation as a leading innovator in the confectionary industry, not only
17 by their wholesale theft of Sugarfinas intellectual property, but also by
18 misrepresenting Sugarfina as a vexatious competitor who seeks to gain an unfair
19 advantage in the marketplace by means of frivolous litigation.
20 167. Each Defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally
21 participated as a member of the conspiracy to steal Sugarfinas intellectual property
22 and diminish the value of Sugarfinas brand in the marketplace.
23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
24 WHEREFORE, Sugarfina prays for relief, as follows:
25 1. A judgment that Defendants have infringed one or more claims of
26 Sugarfinas asserted patent;
27 2. An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining
28 Defendants and their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, affiliates,
- 49 - COMPLAINT
1 attorneys, and all others acting in privity or in concert with them, and their
2 parents, subsidiaries, divisions, successors and assigns, from further acts of
3 infringement of Sugarfinas asserted patent;
4 3. A judgment awarding Sugarfina all damages adequate to
5 compensate for Defendants infringement of Sugarfinas asserted patent, and in
6 no event less than a reasonable royalty for Defendants acts of infringement,
7 including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate
8 permitted by law;
9 4. A judgment awarding Sugarfina all damages, including treble
10 damages, based on any infringement found to be willful, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
11 284, together with prejudgment interest;
12 5. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants and

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, affiliates, attorneys, and all
14 others acting in privity or in concert with them, and their parents, subsidiaries,
15 divisions, successors and assigns, from directly or indirectly infringing the
16 Sugarfina Trade Dress, Registered Trademarks, unregistered common law
17 trademarks, or using any other product or packaging design or designations similar
18 to or likely to cause confusion with the Sugarfina Trade Dress, Registered
19 Trademarks, and unregistered common law trademarks; from passing off
20 Defendants products as being associated with and or sponsored or affiliated with
21 Sugarfina; from committing any other unfair business practices directed toward
22 obtaining for themselves the business and customers of Sugarfina; and from
23 committing any other unfair business practices directed toward devaluing or
24 diminishing the brand or business of Sugarfina.
25 6. Actual damages suffered by Sugarfina as a result of Defendants
26 unlawful conduct, in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as prejudgment
27 interest as authorized by law;
28 7. Reasonable funds for future corrective advertising;
- 50 - COMPLAINT
1 8. An accounting of Defendants profits pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117;

2 9. A judgment trebling any damages award pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
3 1117;
4 10. Punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code 3294;
5 11. Restitutionary relief against Defendants and in favor of Sugarfina,
6 including disgorgement of wrongfully obtained profits and any other appropriate
7 relief;
8 12. Costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees, including, but not limited
9 to, a finding that this case is exceptional and awarding attorneys fees and costs
10 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; and
11 13. Any other remedy to which Sugarfina may be entitled, including all
12 remedies provided for in 15 U.S.C. 1117, Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 17200, et seq.,
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 17500, et seq., and under any other California law.

14
15 Dated: October 16, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
16 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
17
By: /s/ Jennifer Trusso Salinas
18 Jennifer Trusso Salinas
Jenny Kim
19 Andre De La Cruz
SUGARFINA, INC.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 51 - COMPLAINT
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff hereby demands
3
a trial by jury of all triable issues.
4
5 Dated: October 16, 2017 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
6
7 By: /s/ Jennifer Trusso Salinas
Jennifer Trusso Salinas
8 Andre De La Cruz
Jenny Kim
SUGARFINA, INC.
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 52 - COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-04456-RSWL-JEM Document 26-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 46 Page ID
#:296
EXHIBIT 1
#:297
#:298
#:299
EXHIBIT 2
#:300
#:301
#:302
EXHIBIT 3
#:303
#:304
#:305
EXHIBIT 4
#:306
#:307
#:308
EXHIBIT 5
#:309
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2018)
Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

Serial Number: 87264489
Filing Date: 12/11/2016
The table below presents the data as entered.
Input Field Entered

SERIAL NUMBER 87264489
MARK INFORMATION
*MARK CANDY CUBE
STANDARD CHARACTERS YES
USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE YES
LITERAL ELEMENT CANDY CUBE
The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any
MARK STATEMENT
particular font, style, size, or color.
REGISTER Principal
APPLICANT INFORMATION
*OWNER OF MARK Sugarfina, LLC
*STREET 3915 W. 102nd Street
*CITY Inglewood
*STATE
California
(Required for U.S. applicants)
*COUNTRY United States

*ZIP/POSTAL CODE
90303
(Required for U.S. applicants)
WEBSITE ADDRESS www.sugarfina.com

LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION
TYPE limited liability company
STATE/COUNTRY WHERE LEGALLY ORGANIZED Delaware
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION
INTERNATIONAL CLASS
*IDENTIFICATION Candy; chocolates

FILING BASIS SECTION 1(b)
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
NAME Paul Chancellor
ATTORNEY DOCKET NUMBER OTM-16005
FIRM NAME Ocean Law
STREET 3463 Red Bluff Court
#:310
CITY Simi Valley
STATE California
COUNTRY United States
ZIP/POSTAL CODE 93063
PHONE 805.368.4586
FAX 805.299.4919
EMAIL ADDRESS pdc@oceanlawgroup.com
AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes
CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
NAME Paul Chancellor
FIRM NAME Ocean Law
STREET 3463 Red Bluff Court
CITY Simi Valley
STATE California
COUNTRY United States
ZIP/POSTAL CODE 93063
PHONE 805.368.4586
FAX 805.299.4919
*EMAIL ADDRESS pdc@oceanlawgroup.com
*AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes
FEE INFORMATION
APPLICATION FILING OPTION TEAS RF
NUMBER OF CLASSES 1
FEE PER CLASS 275
*TOTAL FEE DUE 275
*TOTAL FEE PAID 275
SIGNATURE INFORMATION
SIGNATURE /paul d. chancellor/
SIGNATORY'S NAME Paul D. Chancellor
SIGNATORY'S POSITION Attorney of Record, CA bar member
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER 805.368.4586
DATE SIGNED 12/11/2016
#:311
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2018)
Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

Filing Date: 12/11/2016
To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
MARK: CANDY CUBE (Standard Characters, see mark)
The literal element of the mark consists of CANDY CUBE.
The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color.
The applicant, Sugarfina, LLC, a limited liability company legally organized under the laws of Delaware, having an address of
3915 W. 102nd Street
Inglewood, California 90303
United States
requests registration of the trademark/service mark identified above in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register
established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq.), as amended, for the following:
International Class _______: Candy; chocolates

Intent to Use: The applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified
goods/services.
For informational purposes only, applicant's website address is: www.sugarfina.com
The applicant's current Attorney Information:

Paul Chancellor of Ocean Law 3463 Red Bluff Court
Simi Valley, California 93063
United States
805.368.4586(phone)
805.299.4919(fax)
pdc@oceanlawgroup.com (authorized)
The attorney docket/reference number is OTM-16005.
The applicant's current Correspondence Information:
Paul Chancellor
Ocean Law
3463 Red Bluff Court
Simi Valley, California 93063
805.368.4586(phone)
805.299.4919(fax)
pdc@oceanlawgroup.com (authorized)
E-mail Authorization: I authorize the USPTO to send e-mail correspondence concerning the application to the applicant or applicant's attorney
at the e-mail address provided above. I understand that a valid e-mail address must be maintained and that the applicant or the applicant's
attorney must file the relevant subsequent application-related submissions via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). Failure to
do so will result in an additional processing fee of $50 per international class of goods/services.
A fee payment in the amount of $275 has been submitted with the application, representing payment for 1 class(es).
Declaration
The signatory believes that: if the applicant is filing the application under 15 U.S.C. 1051(a), the applicant is the owner of the
trademark/service mark sought to be registered; the applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the
application; the specimen(s) shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods/services in the application; and/or if the applicant filed
an application under 15 U.S.C. 1051(b), 1126(d), and/or 1126(e), the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce; the applicant has a
#:312
bona fide intention, and is entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the application. The signatory
believes that to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the
mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services
of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive. The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are
punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the
validity of the application or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all
statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
Declaration Signature
Signature: /paul d. chancellor/ Date: 12/11/2016

Signatory's Name: Paul D. Chancellor
Signatory's Position: Attorney of Record, CA bar member
RAM Sale Number: 87264489
RAM Accounting Date: 12/12/2016

Internet Transmission Date: Sun Dec 11 10:08:12 EST 2016
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/BAS-XXX.XXX.XX.X-20161211100812573
551-87264489-5707017e2f0d71eaa62f194f6c3
93fac71acc0783e5bfa195c287aa73a5425bebe-
CC-7401-20161211095421160871
#:313
#:314
EXHIBIT 6
#:315
US00D755641S
(12) United States Design Patent do Patent No.: US D755,641 S

ONeill (45) Date of Patent: ::: May 10, 2016
(54) PACKAGING (56) References Cited
(71) Applicant: Rosie Colleen ONeill, Los Angeles, CA |U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
(US) 3,126,093 A * 3/1964 Bradley et al. ................ 206/752
D292.876 S + 11/1987 Grunhut ......... ... D9/721
(72) Inventor: Rosie Colleen ONeill, Los Angeles, CA D292.877 S + 11/1987 Grunhut ..... ... D9/721
(US) D335,819 S + 5/1993 Campbell ... D9/721
6,533,166 B1* 3/2003 Kaiss ...... ... 232/1 D
- D511,681 S + 1 1/2005 Cogley et al. ...... ... D9/416
(73) Assignee: Sugarfina, LLC, Inglewood, CA (US) D643,306 S + 8/2011 Martinez et al. ... ... D9/721
D669,352 S + 10/2012 Paslawski .......... ... D9/423
(**) Term: 14 Years ! ; ; ; r
5 ... .
TalllS ............................
(21) Appl. No. 29/499,564 * cited by examiner

(22) Filed: Aug. 15, 2014 Primary Examiner Derrick Holland
51) LOC (10) Cl. ................................................ 09-03
Assistant Examiner Lauren Calve
(51) (10) (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm Paul D. Chancellor, Ocean
(52) ll. D9/721 Law
(58) Field of Classification Search ornamental design , ing, as shown and
USPC .......... D9/414, 415, 420, 426,432, 433, 715, described.
9. packaging,
D9/721, 737, 756, 759, 761; D3/201, 205,
D3/206, 273, 274, 283, 298,290: 206/214, DESCRIPTION
206/215, 224, 318, 424, 425, 515, 518, 525,
206/575, 751756, 758, 763, 765; 229/103, FIG. 1 is an exploded perspective view of a packaging show
229/116.1, 120.02, 120.06, 120.07, 120.33, ing my new design;
229/124, 125.01, 125,08, 125.125 FIG. 2 is a perspective view thereof, shown without the insert
CPC ... B65D 21/0233; B65D 5/68; B65D 5/6697: and packaging tray for clarity of illustration;
B65D 5/0245; B65D 5/5021; B65D 5/5213; FIG. 3 is a front view thereof;
B65D 5/42. B65D 5/2057; B65D 5/72; FIG. 4 is a rear view thereof;
B65D 5/566; B65D 5/643; B65D 5/50: FIG. 5 is top view thereof; and,
FIG. 6 is a side view thereof.
B65D 5/48; B65D 5/66; B65D 1/36; B65D The broken lines shown represent unclaimed subject matter
85/00; B65D 85/324; B65D 85/60, B65D and form no part of the claimed design. The shade lines shown
2543/00194; B65D 2543/00648; B65D 71/70; represent surface shading and not surface ornamentation.
B65D 77/02; B65D 77/0433; B65D 77/24
See application file for complete search history. 1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets
#:316
U.S. Patent May 10, 2016 Sheet 1 of 4 US D755,641 S

#:317
U.S. Patent May 10, 2016 Sheet 2 of 4

#:318
#:319
U.S. Patent May 10, 2016 Sheet 4 of 4
FIG 5
FIG. 6
\ \ \
#:320
EXHIBIT 7
#:321
#:322
#:323
#:324
#:325
#:326
#:327
#:328
EXHIBIT 8
#:329
#:330
#:331
#:332
#:333
#:334
EXHIBIT 9
#:335
SWEET PETES
ACCUSED PRODUCTS
1. Candy Bento Boxes

#:336
#:337
2. Cuba Libre Cocktail
3. Ooh So Organic Peach Bellini

#:338
4. Candy Cube
#:339
5. Candy Concierge
6. Various Products Using Sugarfinas Trade Dress

#:340
#:341

Sugarfina Inc. v. Sweet Pete&#39;s - Amended Complaint

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sugarfina Inc. v. Sweet Pete&#39;s - Amended Complaint

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 2:17-cv-04456-RSWL-JEM Document 26 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 53 Page ID #:243

1 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

12 SUGARFINA, INC., a Delaware Case No.: 2:17-CV-4456 RSWL (JEMx)

13 Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew

1 Plaintiff Sugarfina, Inc. (Sugarfina) complains and alleges as follows

1 5. At present, Sugarfinas distribution channels have been well

12 the signature innovations of Sugarfinas branding is its presentation of candy in

13 museum-quality Lucite that emphasizes the artisanal and rarified quality of a

1 turn around strategy focused on ripping-off Sugarfinas intellectual property.

12 12. Plaintiff Sugarfina is a Delaware corporation having its principal

13 place of business at 3915 West 102nd Street, Inglewood, California 90303.

1 managers of Sweet Petes and one of the managers of Farrells.

12 26. As a direct result of its innovative and distinctive design and

12 following, in connection with the sale and marketing of their products:

13 41. CANDY BENTO BOXattached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct

12 i.e., with the same meaning.

13 Sugarfinas Trade Dress

1 49. Each of these elements of the Sugarfina products is distinctive and

12 a series of clear cubes containing candy product that each reside in a

12 Exhibits 7 and 8: Reg. Nos. VA0001963482 and VA0001963483.

13 Defendants Infringing Products

12 feel from Sugarfinas distinctive packaging. In contrast to Sugarfinas clean lines,

1 marketing materials. Branden Stanley, the Marketing Director at Marcus Lemonis

13 of Sugarfinas distinctive packaging and marketing.

1 changed, however, with Marcus Lemoniss involvement. The Farrells episode

13 69. In an episode of the Shark Tank Podcast, published on September 8,

d. CANDY BENTO BOX

Sugarfinas Original Use Defendants Infringing Use

24 71. In addition, Defendants have deliberately taken steps to misappropriate

25 Sugarfinas valuable brand by redirecting customers searching for Sugarfina

26 products on the internet to Defendants advertisements, websites, and products. As

27 shown below, by purchasing the AdWord SUGARFINA to prioritize the

28 placement of Defendants advertisements following a Google search for

SUGARFINA, INC.S FIRST AMENDED

15 or affiliated with Sugarfina, when they are not.

16 73. Sugarfinas goodwill among consumers is closely tied to its position as

17 an outlier in confectioners productsthat of luxury and sophistication.

18 Defendants flagrant and relentless copying of Sugarfinas intellectual property

25 generating an annualized revenue of $3,120,000.

26 74. Sugarfinas efforts to address Defendants pervasive copying of

27 Sugarfina's innovations and intellectual property directly with Defendants have

SUGARFINA, INC.S FIRST AMENDED

1 in a coordinated campaign to harm Sugarfina in the marketplace. Finding the

1 87. Defendants began marketing a copycat product in at least 2015, a

88. An ordinary observer of Defendants candy packaging and Sugarfinas

12 The manufacture and distribution of Defendants products with packaging and

13 product design features that mimic a combination of several elements of the

12 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).

13 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 111. Defendants use of the infringing product lineup enables Defendants

13 Defendants infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks as described

1 118. Because Defendants actions have been committed with intent to

12 other unregistered marks, including SUGARFINA, CUBA LIBRE, PEACH

13 BELLINI, FRUTTINI, CANDY BENTO BOX, CANDY CUBE, and CANDY

13 Defendants have gained profits by virtue of their infringement of Sugarfinas

1 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) and 1117(b).

1 137. Defendants acted willfully and intentionally in designing its

12 139. As a direct and proximate result of these acts, Defendants have

12 time. Sugarfina is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for

13 Defendants infringement, which in no event can be less than a reasonable royalty.

1 150. Sugarfina has never granted to Defendants any license to make or

12 153. Sugarfina is further entitled to recover from Defendants the damages

1 Lemoniss approximately 830,000 Facebook followers and Sweet Petes

12 an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

Sugarfina Inc. v. Sweet Pete's - Amended Complaint

Sugarfina Inc. v. Sweet Pete's - Amended Complaint