Consent Motion for Suspension in View of Civil Proceeding

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1097320 Filing date: 11/23/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding No. 91256595 Filing Party Defendant Candyman Kitchens Other Party Plaintiff Sweets Indeed, LLC Pending Motion There is no motion currently pending and no other motion is being filed concurrent with this consent motion. Attachments 2020-11-23 91256595 Blood Clots Mot to Suspend.pdf(113419 bytes ) Exhibit 1 Complaint.pdf(2480060 bytes ) Exhibit 2 Answer.pdf(166863 bytes )

The parties are engaged in a civil action which may have a bearing on this proceeding. Accordingly, Candy- man Kitchens hereby requests suspension of this proceeding pending a final determination of the civil action. Trademark Rule 2.117. Candyman Kitchens has secured the express consent of all other parties to this proceeding for the suspension requested herein. Certificate of Service

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this filing has been served upon all parties, at their address of record by Email on this date. Respectfully submitted, /David King/ David King [email protected], [email protected] 11/23/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Sweets Indeed, LLC Opposition No. 91256595

Opposer, v.

Candyman Kitchens Mark: BLOOD CLOTS

Serial No. 88666939

APPLICANT’S MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDING PENDING DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT ACTION

Pursuant to 27 C.F.R. § 2.117(a) and TBMP § 510.02(a), Applicant Canydman Kitchens

(“Applicant”), by its counsel, hereby moves the Board to suspend the above-referenced proceedings pending the final disposition of federal district court case No. 2:20-cv-00841, filed

January 27, 2020, in the federal district court for the Central District of California. A copy of the operative Third Amended Complaint, (“Complaint”) filed June 1, 2020, is attached as Exhibit 1.

A copy of the operative Answer is attached as Exhibit 2.

The Complaint seeks a judgment that Opposer Sweets Indeed, LLC (“Opposer”) is engaged in trademark infringement and counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and common law, false designation of origin and descriptions under 15

U.S.C. § 1125(a), trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), common law unfair competition, deceptive, false, and misleading advertising under California law, and unfair

competition under California law. These claims are based in part on Opposer’s use of the trademark

at issue in this proceeding.

“Whenever it shall come to the attention of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that a

party or parties to a pending case are engaged in a civil action . . . which may have a bearing on

the case, proceedings before the Board may be suspended until termination of the civil action.” 37

C.F.R. § 2.117(a). “It is the policy of the Board to suspend proceedings when the parties are involved in a civil action which may be dispositive of or have a bearing on the Board case.”

Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Skull Shaver LLC, 2020 WL 553712, at *1 (TTAB 2020); see also New Orleans Louisiana Saints LLC v. Who Dat? Inc., 99 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (TTAB

2011) (civil action only needs to have a bearing on the issues before the Board in order to warrant suspension). The “Board’s policy to suspend in favor of a civil action has not changed” in light of the Supreme Court’s holding that issue preclusion can be based on a decision of the Board. TBMP

§ 510.02(a). “A civil action may involve other matters outside Board jurisdiction and may consider broader issues beyond right to registration and, therefore, judicial economy is usually served by suspension.” Id.

Here, the civil action involves the same parties, the same mark, and the same products that are at issue in this proceeding. Applicant alleges in the civil action that Opposer is infringing on the mark at issue in this proceeding. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 98. Accordingly, the civil action and this proceeding are sufficiently related that the civil action will be dispositive of, or at least have a significant bearing on, the issues before the Board in this proceeding. Suspension is therefore warranted. See, e.g., The Other Telephone Co. v. Connecticut National Telephone Co., Inc., 181

USPQ 125 (TTAB 1974) (“It is clear therefore that the final determination of the civil suit will directly affect the resolution of the issue . . . which is involved in the proceeding before the

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Accordingly . . . proceeding herein are suspended until final disposition of the civil suit in which the parties are involved.”); Softbelly’s Inc. v. Ty, Inc., 2002

WL 1844210, at *3 (TTAB 2002) (“It would waste the Board’s and the parties’ time and resources to proceed to litigate this case at the Board when the same issue is in the post-judgment state in the district court.”).

Moreover, the civil action involves broader issues than this proceeding. It involves other marks, one of which is at issue in a separate TTAB proceeding, two of which are not. It also involves state law claims. Applicant alleges in the civil action that Opposer is engaged in a

“deliberate scheme to manufacture and promote replica products,” which it describes as “the same” as Applicant’s products. Compl. ¶ 1. This scheme includes but is not limited to the mark at issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, this proceeding would only have a significant bearing upon a limited portion of the civil action. This reinforces the appropriateness of suspension—judicial economy would not be served by going forward with this proceeding while a civil action raising the same but also additional issues is pending.

For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board issue an order immediately suspending all activating related to this proceeding.

Dated: November 23, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, /s/David King

REICHMAN JORGENSEN LLP David King 1710 Rhode Island Avenue, NW 12th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 202-894-7310 [email protected] Jodie W. Cheng 100 Marine Parkway

Suite 300 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (650) 623-1401 [email protected] Attorneys for Applicant, Candyman Kitchens

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.119, the undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the above- document, and all supporting and associated exhibits, has been served upon all parties, at their address of record by Email on this date. /s/Jodie W. Cheng Jodie W. Cheng

EXHIBIT 1 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 99 Page ID #:573 FILED CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

1 Jodie W. Cheng (SBN 292330) 6/01/2020 [email protected] 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JWC LEGAL BY: ______lom DEPUTY 3 445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 4 (415) 293-8308 5 Counsel for Plaintiff 6 Candyman Kitchens Inc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 CASE NO. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR

11 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED 12 CANDYMAN KITCHENS INC. COMPLAINT FOR 13 TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT (15 Plaintiff, U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a), COMMON 14 LAW); FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); v. TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT (15 16 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); 17 COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION; 18 SWEETS INDEED, LLC; MARIE E. FALSE ADVERTISING (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500 et seq.); 19 DANNETTELLE UNFAIR COMPETITION (CAL. BUS. & 20 Defendants. PROF. CODE § 17200 et seq.) 21 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 99 Page ID #:574

1 Pursuant to the Court’s jurisdiction conferred at least by 15 U.S.C § 1121, 2 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) & (b) and 1367, and as further described below, 3 Plaintiff Candyman Kitchens Inc. (“Candyman” or “Plaintiff”) submits this 4 Complaint against Sweets Indeed, LLC (“Sweets Indeed”) and Marie E. 5 Dannettelle (collectively, “Defendants”); and alleges as follows: 6 INTRODUCTION 7 1. This action arises from Defendants’ deliberate scheme to manufacture 8 and promote replica products—which Defendants themselves described as “the 9 same” as Plaintiff Candyman’s products, including bearing Candyman’s marks, 10 packaging, and design—for sale to customers of Candyman and its predecessor, 11 Can You Imagine That! Confections, Inc. 12 2. Candyman and its creative, novelty candy products are the brainchild 13 of David Klein, who invented the world-famous Jelly Belly® in 1976, and his 14 daughter, Roxanne (Roxy) Klein. As a well-known figure in the candy industry 15 and after inventing Jelly Belly®, Mr. Klein “would go on to appear on several talk 16 shows and even pose for People Magazine—and subsequently became renowned 17 as the ‘Candyman’,” as well as the subject of a 2010 feature-length documentary 18 film. 19 3. Candyman’s mission was to provide novelty candy and confectionary 20 that are fun, memorable, distinctive, and unusual. In Candyman’s view, novelty 21 candy should not only taste good but also inspire playfulness, whimsy, and 22 sometimes even shock. Candyman succeeded in its mission with its candy products 23 designed to resemble fantastical or shocking objects, such as beautiful, multi- 24 colored edible candy “sand art” (Sandy Candy), candy Blood Clots and Crime 25 Scene Candy packaged in plastic vials to resemble lab specimens, and candy 26 Boogers from zombies, unicorns, dragons, etc. These lighthearted and attention- 27 28

1 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 3 of 99 Page ID #:575

1 grabbing confections attracted the attention and curiosity of consumers, and were 2 popular items, particularly during Halloween and for parties. 3 4. Candyman’s products gained widespread attention, in part because 4 they are associated with Mr. Klein—who has been described by others as a 5 “visionary when it comes to new tastes”; “destined to be in the candy business”; 6 “kind, whimsical, and generous”; “unique in every facet”; and “a good person” who 7 “breathe[s] life into” candy products—and his family, and their unwavering 8 dedication to innovative candy creations. Candyman’s products are sold across the 9 country and around the world, directly to consumers (often from orders placed 10 through Candyman’s websites), as well as through retailers like Amazon and Candy 11 Warehouse. 12 5. Up until early 2017, the Candyman products were designed, 13 manufactured, and sold through Mr. Klein’s related company, Can You Imagine 14 That! Confections Inc. Then, in May 2017, Can You Imagine That! Confections 15 transferred all its intellectual property rights, including trademarks and product 16 designs, to Candyman; Candyman effectively became the successor in interest to 17 Can You Imagine That! Confections as Mr. Klein to streamline his business 18 operations. Thereafter, the Candyman products were manufactured and sold by 19 Candyman under the Can You Imagine That! Confections brand. 20 6. Specifically, in early 2017, Can You Imagine That! Confections 21 relocated its manufacturing facility and business operations from Southern 22 California to Florida, where Candyman is based. Rather than transporting all the 23 manufacturing machinery and equipment across the country, Can You Imagine 24 That! Confections sold its manufacturing facility in Covina, CA. Mr. Klein planned 25 to continue operating his businesses in Florida where Candyman would sell the 26 27 28

2 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 4 of 99 Page ID #:576

1 novelty candy under the Can You Imagine That! Confections brand, as had been 2 done in California for many years. 3 7. Can You Imagine That! Confections’s Covina, CA manufacturing 4 facility was sold to another Southern California-based candy company, Defendant 5 Sweets Indeed. At the time of the sale, Sweets Indeed primarily focused on 6 providing candy sprinkles and confetti, most often used as dessert toppings and 7 cake decorations. 8 8. The terms of the sale were memorialized in the parties’ Asset Purchase 9 Agreement, which expressly excluded all trademarks, URL domains, goodwill, and 10 other non-fixed assets from the sale. In fact, on several occasions, Defendant 11 Dannettelle, founder of Sweets Indeed, wrote to Mr. Klein to confirm that 12 Candyman’s trademarks and business remained property of Can You Imagine That! 13 Confections. These trademarks, as well as all other intellectual property of Can 14 You Imagine That! Confections, were transferred to Candyman in May 2017. 15 9. Although Defendants wrote that they were not interested in 16 Candyman’s trademarks, brands, or business; after the sale, Sweets Indeed 17 proceeded to rip-off Candyman’s products and mislead Candyman’s customers into 18 believing that Candyman and Sweets Indeed are the same company or somehow 19 related entities. 20 10. Defendants made their wrongful intentions abundantly clear in a letter 21 to Candyman’s customers sent immediately after the purchase of the Covina, CA 22 facility. Tellingly, Dannettelle wrote: “This letter is part of an ongoing effort to 23 reach out to former customers of Can You Imagine That! Confections and ensure 24 you are aware that we are continuing to make many of the same products as 25 those that you were previously ordering.” The letter encouraged the customers to 26 27 28

3 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 5 of 99 Page ID #:577

1 purchase from Sweets Indeed by offering a discount “[i]n order to help the 2 transition.” 3 11. Thereafter, Defendants began selling novelty candies—specifically, 4 the candy Boogers, candy Blood Clots, Crime Scene Candy, and Sandy Candy— 5 that were virtually identical to Candyman’s products. Sweets Indeed’s copycat 6 products even bear Candyman’s trademarks and trade dress, and some are even 7 advertised under the Can You Imagine That! Confections name. 8 12. Defendants intentionally caused such pervasive confusion that 9 industry professionals, candy retailers, and customers were unable to discern the 10 origin of the candy products. For example, in late 2019, a customer service 11 representative from Candy Warehouse, a large online bulk candy seller, stated a 12 mistaken belief that “Sweet[s] Indeed and Can You Imagine [That] are 13 together . . . either the same company or merged.” When asked what Sweets 14 Indeed products are carried by Candy Warehouse, the representative provided a 15 link to a webpage displaying all products from Can You Imagine That! 16 Confections. 17 13. As a result of Sweets Indeed’s copycat products, Candyman has seen 18 a drastic reduction in sales of its legitimate products, at least because consumers 19 and retailers are unknowingly ordering rip-off products from Sweets Indeed. Some 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 6 of 99 Page ID #:578

1 major resellers, including Amazon, have even suspended Candyman’s ability to sell 2 while Sweets Indeed continues to advertise, promote, and sell its copied products. 3 14. Candyman submits this Complaint seeking monetary damages, 4 injunctive relief, and other remedies for the Defendants’ intentional wrongful 5 conduct and violations. 6 PARTIES 7 15. Candyman Kitchens Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of 8 the State of Florida, with its principal place of business at 8749 NE Jacksonville 9 Rd., Anthony, FL 32617. 10 16. On information and belief, Sweets Indeed, LLC is a limited liability 11 corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal 12 place of business at 1032 E. Edna Place, Covina, CA 91724. 13 17. On information and belief, Marie E. Dannettelle is an individual 14 residing in the State of California who may be contacted at 611 N. Vista Bonita 15 Ave, Glendora, CA 91741. Ms. Dannettelle is the founder of Sweets Indeed. 16 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17 18. This is an action for trademark and trade dress infringement, false 18 designation of origin, false advertising and unfair competition. This action arises 19 under the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. (“the Lanham Act”); 20 California Business & Professions Code § 17500 et seq.; California Unfair 21 Competition Law Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and common law. 22 19. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 23 at least 15 U.S.C § 1121 (action arising under the Lanham Act) and 28 U.S.C. 24 §§ 1331 (federal question), 1338(a) & (b) (action relating to trademarks and unfair 25 competition), and 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims). 26 20. This Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over 27 Defendants pursuant to due process and the California Long Arm Statute because 28 Defendant Sweets Indeed has an regularly established place of business in this

5 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 7 of 99 Page ID #:579

1 District from which it conducts business; Defendant Dannettelle resides within this 2 District; and Defendants have committed and continue to commit acts of 3 infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws, and 4 knowingly place infringing products into the stream of commerce, including within 5 the State of California and this District. These acts by Defendants cause injury to 6 Candyman within this District. 7 21. Further, upon information and belief, Defendants also derive 8 substantial revenue from the sale of infringing products within this District and in 9 interstate commerce; and Defendants anticipate and expect their acts to have 10 consequences within this District. 11 22. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1367(a), and 12 1400(a). A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this 13 District; Defendants regularly conduct business within this District, including 14 having a regularly established place of business within this District, or reside within 15 this District; and Defendants have committed and continue to commit acts of 16 infringement and unfair competition within this District. Defendants’ wrongful 17 acts giving rise to this lawsuit, and the resulting harm to Candyman, have occurred 18 and are occurring in the State of California and this District. 19 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 20 I. Plaintiff Candyman Kitchens and Its Products 21 23. Can You Imagine That! Confections Inc. was founded in 1995 by 22 David Klein, who has been a widely known figure in the candy industry since at 23 least 1976 when he invented the internationally known Jelly Belly® jelly bean. Mr. 24 Klein “would go on to appear on several talk shows and even pose for People 25 Magazine—and subsequently became renowned as the ‘Candyman’,” as well as the

26 subject of a feature-length documentary film. (THE CANDYMAN’S COMEBACK, Jan. 27 16, 2019, available at https://www.eriereader.com/article/the-candymans-

28 comeback; see also 10 QUESTIONS FOR CANDYMAN DAVID KLEIN, May 30, 2008,

6 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 8 of 99 Page ID #:580

1 available at http://candyaddict.com/blog/2008/05/30/10-questions-for-candyman- 2 david-klein/.) 3 24. Mr. Klein’s activities and involvement in the candy industry, 4 including his companies Can You Imagine That! Confections and Plaintiff

5 Candyman, frequently garner public support and praise. (E.g., GLENDORA MAN

6 WHO INVENTED JELLY BELLY THINKS HE’S FOUND THE NEXT BIG THING, Jan. 27, 7 2016, available at https://www.sgvtribune.com/2016/01/27/glendora-man-who- 8 invented-jelly-belly-thinks-hes-found-the-next-big-thing/.) 9 25. After selling his rights in Jelly Belly®—a transaction for which Mr. 10 Klein and many others view was a “raw deal” and the subject of many articles and 11 a documentary film—Mr. Klein devoted substantial efforts, time, and investment 12 into new candy inventions and ventures, including Can You Imagine That!

13 Confections and Plaintiff Candyman. (E.g., BEAN COUNTER:THE REVIVAL OF

14 AMERICA’S JELLY BEAN KING, Mar. 28, 2016, available at 15 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/53q443/bean-counter-the-revival-of-

16 americas-jelly-bean-king; THE CANDYMAN’S COMEBACK, Jan. 16, 2019, available 17 at https://www.eriereader.com/article/the-candymans-comeback.) 18 26. Plaintiff Candyman creates, manufactures, markets, and sells novelty 19 candy. Candyman’s products, which are now marketed and sold by Candyman 20 under the Can You Imagine That! Confections brand, include Sandy Candy 21 (multicolored candy “sand” to create edible candy art); candy Blood Clots and 22 Crime Scene Candy (candy that is designed and packaged to resemble lab 23 specimens); and candy Boogers (loose candy pieces), such as Zombie Boogers, 24 Unicorn Boogers, Ghost Boogers, and Dragon Boogers. 25 27. Consumers associate Candyman’s novelty products with fun, whimsy, 26 and sometimes even shock that attracts consumers’ attention and curiosity. These 27 products are particularly popular during holidays like Halloween, as well as for 28 children’s and themed parties.

7 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 9 of 99 Page ID #:581

1 28. Candyman’s products have gained widespread attention, in part 2 because they are associated with Mr. Klein—who has been described by others as 3 a “visionary when it comes to new tastes”; “destined to be in the candy business”; 4 “kind, whimsical, and generous”; “unique in every facet”; and “a good person” who

5 “breathe[s] life into” products—and his family. (E.g., GLENDORA MAN WHO

6 INVENTED JELLY BELLY THINKS HE’S FOUND THE NEXT BIG THING, Jan. 27, 2016, 7 available at https://www.sgvtribune.com/2016/01/27/glendora-man-who-

8 invented-jelly-belly-thinks-hes-found-the-next-big-thing/; MEET THE CANDYMAN:

9 INVENTOR OF JELLY BELLY SETS UP SHOP IN CLEARWATER, Dec. 8, 2016, available 10 at https://www.tampabay.com/things-to-do/consumer/meet-the-candyman-

11 inventor-of-jelly-belly-sets-up-shop-in-clearwater/2305431/; THE CANDYMAN’S

12 COMEBACK, Jan. 16, 2019, available at https://www.eriereader.com/article/the- 13 candymans-comeback.) 14 29. For example, while she was still in high school, Roxy Klein created 15 Sandy Candy, which are multicolored, flavored dextrose powders used to create 16 edible “sand art.” Can You Imagine That! Confections then transformed Ms. 17 Klein’s idea into a marketable product that was, and still is, distributed and sold

18 around the world. (E.g., BEAN COUNTER:THE REVIVAL OF AMERICA’S JELLY BEAN

19 KING, Mar. 28, 2016, available at 20 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/53q443/bean-counter-the-revival-of- 21 americas-jelly-bean-king.) 22 30. Can You Imagine That! Confections and the Sandy Candy products 23 became large successes in the novelty candy industry, which associated Sandy

24 Candy with the Kleins. (WOMEN TALK:10QUESTIONS WITH CANDY CREATOR

25 ROXY KLEIN, Oct. 31, 2013 (“Roxy, 35, is known as Candy Creator at Can You 26 Imagine That! Confections! Inc., the $1 million plus candy manufacturing company 27 she co-owns with her dad, David Klein, the man behind Jelly Belly jelly beans . . . . 28 [S]ince the age of three, Roxy has been coming up with new and imaginative candy

8 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 10 of 99 Page ID #:582

1 product ideas. Since then, she has become known for her innovative and original 2 novelty creations that now fill candy store shelves around the country.”), available 3 at https://womenyoushouldknow.net/women-talk-10-questions-with-candy-

4 woman-roxy-klein/; 10 QUESTIONS FOR CANDYMAN DAVID KLEIN, May 30, 2008 5 (“From the age of 3, Roxy was always trying to come up with a new candy 6 product . . . . When Roxy came up with the idea for Sandy Candy I was very 7 excited and I knew that it would be a big hit. I did what I could to help her but 99 8 percent of the credit goes to Roxy. She is not only very very smart, but I have never 9 seen anyone who works as hard as she does.”), available at 10 http://candyaddict.com/blog/2008/05/30/10-questions-for-candyman-david- 11 klein/.) 12 31. Below are exemplary excerpts from the webpage for Candyman’s 13 Sandy Candy Fundraiser Kit on Amazon: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 11 of 99 Page ID #:583

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 32. Similarly, Candyman’s candy Boogers products have also attracted 11 the attention and support of candy enthusiasts, who associate candy Boogers with 12 Candyman and Mr. Klein. 13 33. For example, one blogger praised Candyman’s Zombie Boogers 14 product for “hav[ing] great names, and look like what they are called but are sweet 15 and yummy” and originating “[f]rom the Candyman, David Klein, inventor of the 16 Jelly Belly Jelly Bean.” The positive commentary was accompanied by images of 17 Mr. Klein and Candyman’s Zombie Boogers and other novelty candy: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

10 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 12 of 99 Page ID #:584

1 (KENT FAMILY MAGIC CIRCUS DAILY BLOG, Jan. 31, 2012, available at 2 http://victorkent.blogspot.com/2012/01/im-posting-these-tonight-without- 3 story.html.) 4 34. Candyman’s products have been marketed and sold across the country 5 and around the world, directly to consumers (often from orders placed through 6 Candyman’s websites), as well as through authorized retailers like Amazon and 7 Candy Warehouse. 8 35. Candyman’s distinctive candy products—Sandy Candy, Crime Scene 9 Candy, candy Blood Clots, and candy Boogers products—(1) have been sold and 10 are sold in distinctive and novel packaging that have become indicative of 11 Candyman’s fantastical candy creations; (2) bear trademarked names and 12 descriptions; and (3) have been sold and are sold under the Can You Imagine That! 13 Confections, Nifty Candy Company, or Candyman Kitchens names. Candyman’s 14 products have exclusively and continuously used the distinctive design, packaging, 15 marks, and brands since their first release. 16 36. Below are images of Candyman’s Sandy Candy products: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

11 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 13 of 99 Page ID #:585

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 37. Below is an image of Candyman’s Crime Scene Candy product: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

12 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 14 of 99 Page ID #:586

1 38. Below are images of Candyman’s candy Blood Clots products: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 39. Below are images of Candyman’s candy Boogers products, namely 12 Zombie Boogers, Unicorn Boogers, Ghost Boogers, and Pig Boogers: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

13 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 15 of 99 Page ID #:587

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II. Candyman’s Marks & Intellectual Property 11 40. Candyman has rights in registered and common law trademarks 12 undergoing application/examination for registration, which have been exclusively 13 and continuously in use by Can You Imagine That! Confections or its successor in 14 interest, Plaintiff Candyman, since their first use, including: 15 x SANDY CANDY® 16 x CRIME SCENE CANDY® 17 x CANDY BLOOD CLOTS™ 18 x BOOGERS™ 19 41. SANDY CANDY®—Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy 20 of U.S. Registration No. 2,415,707. Can You Imagine That! Confections has been 21 using the SANDY CANDY® mark in commerce in connection with edible candy 22 sand art since at least 1998 and filed a trademark application for this mark on 23 December 27, 1999. The SANDY CANDY® mark, along with all other intellectual 24 property and rights thereto, were transferred and assigned to Candyman in May 25 2017. 26 42. CRIME SCENE CANDY®—Attached as Exhibit B is a true and 27 correct copy of U.S. Registration No. 5,670,600. Can You Imagine That! 28 Confections first used the CRIME SCENE CANDY® mark in connection with

14 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 16 of 99 Page ID #:588

1 candy by April 30, 2009; and Plaintiff Candyman filed a trademark application for 2 this mark on August 21, 2018. 3 43. CANDY BLOOD CLOTS™—Attached as Exhibit C is a true and 4 correct copy of U.S. Application Serial No. 88/666,939. The CANDY BLOOD 5 CLOTS™ mark was used in commerce by Can You Imagine That! Confections, in 6 connection with candy, at least as of March 24, 2011. Plaintiff Candyman filed a 7 trademark application for this mark on October 24, 2019. 8 44. BOOGERS™—Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of 9 U.S. Application Serial No. 88/748,048. The BOOGERS™ mark was used in 10 commerce by Candyman, in connection with candy, at least as of March 24, 2011. 11 Plaintiff Candyman filed a trademark application for this mark on January 6, 2020. 12 45. As a direct result of their novel and distinctive design, packaging, and 13 marks—as well as the substantial time, money, and resources invested in promoting 14 the marks and brands under which the products are sold—Candyman’s products 15 became popular with customers of novelty candy. The appearance, marks, and 16 brands of Candyman’s products have become widely recognized and uniquely 17 associated with Mr. Klein’s companies and brands, Candyman and Can You 18 Imagine That! Confections, as their source. 19 46. In addition to being known and associated with Mr. Klein’s companies 20 and wide-spread reputation in the candy industry, Candyman’s products and marks 21 have independently earned substantial praise and goodwill from customers and 22 consumers and achieved secondary meaning as an identifier of high-quality, 23 uniquely creative, novelty candy. Positive commentary and praise for Candyman’s 24 products have been submitted by customers, often in the form of online product 25 reviews displayed alongside images of Candyman’s products. (See supra, ¶¶ 25– 26 33.) 27 28

15 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 17 of 99 Page ID #:589

1 III. Defendants’ Knowledge and Notice of Candyman’s Intellectual Property 2 47. Defendants are well aware that Candyman owns and uses the marks, 3 as evinced at least by (1) Candyman’s federal registrations and applications; 4 (2) Defendants’ written statements in multiple emails recognizing that Can You 5 Imagine That! Confections owned the marks; (2) the registration of the assignment 6 from Can You Imagine That! Confections to Candyman with the U.S. Patent & 7 Trademark Office; and (3) the recent Opposition before the U.S. Trademark Trial 8 and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) filed by Candyman in response to Defendants’ 9 attempt to register the BOOGERS mark as their own. 10 48. In early 2017, as part of the relocation to Florida, Can You Imagine 11 That! Confections began discussing the sale of its manufacturing facility in Covina, 12 CA with Defendant Sweets Indeed and Defendant Dannettelle. 13 49. Specifically, after expressing initial interest in acquiring Can You 14 Imagine That! Confections’s manufacturing facility, Defendant Dannettelle 15 discussed the details of the prospective purchase with Mr. Klein. On information 16 and belief, while negotiating the terms of the transaction in February 2017, 17 Defendant Dannettelle wrote to Mr. Klein that Defendants were “not interested in 18 buying the business outright” and Mr. Klein “would keep the . . . Can You Imagine 19 That! Confections, Inc. brand as [Defendants] are not interested in taking that on.” 20 Notably, Ms. Dannettelle asked Mr. Klein whether he understood that he (through 21 his companies) would “get to keep [his] names and trademarks.” Mr. Klein 22 confirmed to Ms. Dannettele that “[n]o trademarks go with the deal,” his companies 23 “would retain the [S]andy [C]andy trademark,” and “[t]he company was never part 24 of the deal.” 25 50. As a result of these discussions, in March 2017, Can You Imagine 26 That! Confections and Defendant Sweets Indeed entered into an Asset Purchase 27 Agreement governing the conveyance of assets, namely the manufacturing facility 28

16 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 18 of 99 Page ID #:590

1 in Covina, CA. The purchase was secured by a Promissory Note executed by 2 Defendant Dannettelle. 3 51. As memorialized in the Asset Purchase Agreement, as well as the 4 written communications surrounding the transaction, Candyman’s trademarks (as 5 well as goodwill, URL domains and websites, computer hardware and software, 6 and other non-fixed assets) were expressly excluded from the purchase. 7 52. On information and belief, after moving into the Covina, CA 8 manufacturing facility in early April 2017, Sweets Indeed began promoting, 9 offering for sale, and manufacturing novelty candy products, including the replica 10 products. 11 53. On May 3, 2017, Can You Imagine That! Confections transferred 12 ownership of its intellectual property, including trademarks, to Plaintiff Candyman. 13 The assignment of the registered trademarks was and is recorded with the U.S. 14 Patent & Trademark Office. 15 54. Thereafter, Can You Imagine That! Confections continued its business 16 operations without interruption and as authorized brand under Candyman to use 17 Candyman’s intellectual property, including the SANDY CANDY®, CRIME 18 SCENE CANDY®, CANDY BLOOD CLOTS™, and BOOGERS™ marks, in 19 connection with candy and confectionary. 20 55. On February 13, 2019, Defendant Sweets Indeed filed an application 21 for registration of the BOOGERS mark (U.S. Application Serial No. 88/299,940). 22 Plaintiff Candyman timely opposed Sweets Indeed’s application. Attached as 23 Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Opposition filed by Candyman 24 (hereinafter, “Opp.”). 25 56. Among other facts, the Opposition alleged that Candyman is the 26 “owner of all right, title and interest in and to the mark BOOGERS used alone or 27 in combination with a design . . . for a variety of confectionary and candy.” (Opp. 28 ¶ 1.) Candyman explained that it had “established common law rights in [the]

17 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 19 of 99 Page ID #:591

1 BOOGERS Marks through continuous use on its candy products . . . since 2011.” 2 (Opp. ¶¶ 3–4.) The marks for which Candyman held common law rights include, 3 but is not limited to, ZOMBIE BOOGERS, UNICORN BOOGERS, and DRAGON 4 BOOGERS. (Opp. ¶ 2.) 5 57. Further, Candyman’s Opposition described the confusion that would 6 likely arise if Sweets Indeed were permitted to use the mark in connection with its 7 products. (E.g., Opp. ¶ 12 (“Upon seeing [Sweets Indeed]’s mark, members of the 8 public are likely to be confused, mistaken, or misled into believing that [Sweets 9 Indeed] has obtained a license from [Candyman] or that [Sweets Indeed] is 10 otherwise affiliated or connected with, or sponsored by [Candyman], or that 11 [Candyman] has endorsed [Sweets Indeed]’s goods.”) 12 58. On June 20, 2019, the TTAB instituted the opposition proceeding 13 against Sweets Indeed’s application for the BOOGERS mark. (Proceeding No. 14 91248988.) The TTAB set discovery to commence on August 29, 2019. After over 15 3 months of discovery, Sweets Indeed withdrew its application for the BOOGERS 16 mark. 17 IV. Defendants’ Deliberate and Intentional Manufacture, Promotion, and Sale of 18 Replica Products 19 59. Despite being aware of Candyman’s products and marks, on 20 information and belief, Defendants have used, copied, reproduced, or manufactured 21 exact replicas of Candyman’s products, including Candyman’s brands and 22 trademarks, to distribute, display, market, sell and place in the stream of commerce 23 products that are substantially the same and virtually identical to Candyman’s 24 products. Defendants’ replica products are certain to mislead, deceive, and cause 25 confusion, and, in fact, already have misled, deceived, and confused. 26 27 28

18 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 20 of 99 Page ID #:592

1 60. On information and belief, Defendants knowingly and intentionally 2 caused customers to be misled, deceived, and confused regarding the origin of the 3 replica products. 4 61. For example, on information and belief, Defendant Dannettelle 5 knowingly and intentionally promoted, sold, and offered for sale replica products 6 that used, copied, or reproduced Candyman’s company names, brands, trademarks, 7 and trade dress; despite having been aware of and participated in the proceedings 8 regarding Sweets Indeed’s unsuccessful attempt to register the BOOGERS mark, 9 as described above. 10 62. Additionally, on information and belief, Defendant Sweets Indeed 11 distributed, displayed, marketed, sold, offered for sale, and placed in the stream of 12 commerce products that are substantially the same and virtually identical to 13 Candyman’s products, in that they copied or reproduced Candyman’s trademarks 14 and trade dress. 15 63. To illustrate, on information and belief, after Can You Imagine That! 16 Confections’s manufacturing facility was acquired, Defendant Dannettelle sent a 17 letter to Candyman’s customers, in which she notifies the recipients that Defendant 18 Sweets Indeed offers “the same products” as Candyman’s products. (Exhibit F.) 19 Dannettelle’s letter states: 20 “Recently, my company acquired the candy manufacturing facility 21 formerly belonging to ‘Can You Imagine That! Confections,’ also known 22 as ‘Nifty Candy Company.’ This letter is part of an ongoing effort to 23 reach out to former customers of Can You Imagine That! 24 Confections and ensure you are aware that we are continuing to make 25 many of the same products as those that you were previously 26 ordering.” 27 (Id. (emphasis added).) 28

19 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 21 of 99 Page ID #:593

1 64. Additionally, Defendants’ use of Candyman’s marks, brands, and 2 trade dress creates a high likelihood of confusion, at least because Defendants have 3 represented that their replica products are “the same” as Candyman’s products; 4 Defendants’ replica products are marketed and sold as though they originate from 5 Candyman; and Defendants have altered nothing about Candyman’s marks, brands, 6 and trade dress. 7 65. By replicating the entire appearance and meaning of Candyman’s 8 marks and trade dress, Defendants have profited and continue to profit from 9 customers’ association with the goodwill and positive reputation signaled by 10 Candyman’s marks, brands, trade dress. 11 66. Candy Warehouse is just one example of the actual deception, 12 misinformation, and confusion caused by Defendants’ acts. Candy Warehouse is 13 an established online candy retailer and distributor that, according to its website, 14 carries over 6,000 varieties of candy and has been in business since 1998. (Candy 15 Warehouse homepage and About Us, available at www.candywarehouse.com.) 16 67. On information and belief, despite having not sold any of its products 17 to Candy Warehouse in the past few years, several of Candyman’s products are still 18 displayed for sale on Candy Warehouse’s website as of the filing of this Complaint. 19 According to Candy Warehouse, these products been sold to Candy Warehouse’s 20 customers at least through 2019. 21 68. For example, below is a screenshot showing Sandy Candy and Crime 22 Scene Candy products being displayed and offered for sale on the Candy 23 Warehouse website: 24 25 26 27 28

20 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 22 of 99 Page ID #:594

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

21 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 23 of 99 Page ID #:595

1 69. On information and belief, the Sandy Candy and Crime Scene Candy 2 products that are advertised, offered for sale, and sold through Candy Warehouse 3 do not originate from Candyman and, instead, are Defendants’ replica, counterfeit 4 products. 5 70. Tellingly, on information and belief, when Candy Warehouse was 6 asked about its source for these products, a customer sales representative stated that 7 he/she was unable to definitively determine whether Candy Warehouse’s stock 8 originated from Defendant Sweets Indeed or Candyman. 9 71. Notably, Candy Warehouse’s customer service representative 10 expressed a (mistaken) belief that “Sweet[s] Indeed and Can You Imagine [That] 11 are together” and “either the same company or merged. When asked what Sweets 12 Indeed products are sold by Candy Warehouse, the representative pointed to a link 13 to Can You Imagine That! Confections’s webpage: 14 https://www.candywarehouse.com/can-you-imagine-candy. 15 72. On information and belief, Defendant Sweets Indeed promotes, 16 advertises, markets, distributes, offers for sale, and sells its replica products, which 17 are virtually identical to Candyman’s products, to customers across the U.S., 18 including on Amazon, Candy Warehouse, Etsy, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, 19 Grocery.com, and other online channels. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

22 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 24 of 99 Page ID #:596

1 73. For example, below are images of Sweets Indeed’s candy Blood Clots 2 being advertised, offered for sale, and sold through Amazon and Sweets Indeed’s 3 own website: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

23 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 25 of 99 Page ID #:597

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 74. For comparison, below are images of Candyman’s candy Blood Clots: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

24 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 26 of 99 Page ID #:598

1 75. Similarly, on information and belief, Sweets Indeed advertises, offers 2 for sale, and sells replica candy Boogers on its website. Below are exemplary 3 screenshots: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

25 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 27 of 99 Page ID #:599

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 76. On information and belief, Sweets Indeed advertises, displays, and 17 offers for sale a variety of Boogers candy products through its virtual storefront on 18 Amazon. Below are exemplary images: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

26 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 28 of 99 Page ID #:600

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

27 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 29 of 99 Page ID #:601

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 77. For comparison, below are images of Candyman’s Zombie Boogers 10 and Unicorn Boogers products: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 78. On information and belief, Defendants also advertise, promote, 20 distribute, offer for sale and sell the replica candy products through Etsy. For 21 example, below are images of user-submitted reviews of candy Unicorn Boogers 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

28 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 30 of 99 Page ID #:602

1 and Zombie Boogers posted on webpages that appear to be managed and controlled 2 by Sweets Indeed, and hosted on Etsy.com: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 79. On information and belief, Defendants also advertise, market, and 22 promote the replica candy products through Instagram. On information and belief, 23 the images below, excerpted from Instagram, were submitted by customers and 24 25 26 27 28

29 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 31 of 99 Page ID #:603

1 employees of Sweets Indeed and describe replica products, particularly Zombie 2 Boogers and Crime Scene Candy, being advertised and sold by Sweets Indeed: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 80. On information and belief, Defendants also advertise, market, and 23 promote their replica products on various other websites and internet platforms, 24 including Facebook and Twitter. 25 81. For example, the following image shows a Facebook post by the 26 Sweets Indeed account that promotes candy Boogers, including Zombie Boogers, 27 28

30 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 32 of 99 Page ID #:604

1 Unicorn Boogers, and Dinosaur Boogers, and encourages the public to visit the 2 Sweets Indeed website to make a purchase: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

31 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 33 of 99 Page ID #:605

1 82. Another post by the same Sweets Indeed account depicts candy Blood 2 Clots, Zombie Boogers, and Ghost Boogers, and encourages readers to visit Sweets 3 Indeed’s Amazon store to buy the products: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 83. Similarly, on information and belief, below is an image of posts (i.e., 17 tweets) from Sweets Indeed’s Twitter account. A tweet from November 11, 2018, 18 describes a forthcoming “Holiday Boogers Collection” product and encourages 19 readers to visit Facebook to learn more and Amazon to make a purchase: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

32 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 34 of 99 Page ID #:606

1 84. On information and belief, Defendants have received significant 2 revenue from sales of candy products that make use of Candyman’s marks, brands, 3 and trade dress. 4 85. For example, on information and belief, Sweets Indeed has at least 5 $ 225,000 in sales of just the candy Boogers products sold through Amazon. 6 86. To further illustrate, on information and belief, at least 457 units of 7 Crime Scene Candy—that originated from Sweets Indeed but promoted and sold 8 using Candyman’s marks and brand names—have been sold through Candy 9 Warehouse from 2018–2019. 10 87. Defendants have no license from Candyman to use, reproduce, or 11 display Candyman’s marks, brands, or trade dress. 12 COUNT I 13 Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) 14 88. Candyman reallege and incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this 15 Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 16 89. Based on the acts, conduct, and events described above, Defendants 17 have infringed Candyman’s registered SANDY CANDY® and CRIME SCENE 18 CANDY® marks under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). 19 90. Candyman is the owner or authorized user of all right and title to the 20 registered SANDY CANDY® and CRIME SCENE CANDY® marks. 21 91. Defendants’ use of Candyman’s trademarks in connection with the 22 promotion, distribution, offer for sale, and/or sale of candy and confectionary is 23 likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive about the identity and 24 origin of the goods. 25 92. On information and belief, Defendants’ use of Candyman’s marks has 26 been intentional, willful and malicious. Defendants’ bad faith is evinced at least by 27 their unlawful use of Candyman’s marks that is intended to cause customers to be 28

33 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 35 of 99 Page ID #:607

1 confused, mistaken, or deceived that Defendants’ products are “the same” as 2 Candyman’s products or originate from Candyman. 3 93. Defendants’ infringement of the SANDY CANDY® and CRIME 4 SCENE CANDY word marks extends beyond products that are covered by 5 Candyman’s trade dress rights. That is, Defendants’ use of the marks to confuse 6 consumers and the public extends to Defendants’ candy products, and promotion 7 and advertising thereof, that may not be covered by Candyman’s trade dress rights. 8 94. In addition to the alleged facts above, the following allegations 9 demonstrate likelihood of confusion: 10 a. Candyman’s SANDY CANDY® and CRIME SCENE 11 CANDY® marks are arbitrary and have acquired secondary meaning. 12 b. Candyman and Can You Imagine That! Confections have done 13 extensive in-person and online, written, photographic, and video, promotion 14 and advertising featuring each of the marks. As examples, Candyman has 15 engaged with bloggers to review its products and manufacturing facility; its 16 founders have participated in numerous interviews in order to promote the 17 products associated with the marks; and displayed its products, which bear 18 the marks, through several online channels, including Amazon, its own 19 websites, and Candy Warehouse. 20 c. Candyman and Can You Imagine That! Confections have also 21 developed a substantial amount of business and goodwill through word of 22 mouth, including the support from the public who know of Mr. Klein’s 23 experiences in the candy industry. Candyman and Can You Imagine That! 24 Confections have provided superior goods and services to their customers; 25 and their customers choose and have chosen to do business with Candyman 26 because they intend to and believe they are supporting goods originating 27 from or affiliated with the Kleins and Mr. Klein’s businesses. Candyman’s 28 marks are associated with and indicators of Candyman’s outstanding service,

34 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 36 of 99 Page ID #:608

1 high-quality and innovative products, and strong reputation. As a result, 2 Candyman has developed substantial goodwill and customer support over 3 the years. 4 d. Defendants have used Candyman’s marks at least online, 5 including on social media, as described above. On information and belief, 6 Defendants’ online and social media activities use Candyman’s marks and 7 deceptively promote and encourage potential customers to purchase 8 Defendants’ candy products on Defendants’ websites or third-party online 9 sellers, e.g., Amazon, Candy Warehouse, and Etsy. 10 e. Defendants’ use of the each of Candyman’s marks is identical 11 to Candyman’s mark. 12 f. Defendants use Candyman’s marks for promoting, advertising, 13 and encouraging the sale of candy and confectionary that are substantially 14 identical to Candyman products. In addition, Defendants derived additional 15 benefit, including the promotion and sale of Defendants’ other products, by 16 improperly using to Candyman’s marks to garner the goodwill, publicity, and 17 reputation of Candyman. 18 g. Defendants’ use of Candyman’s arbitrary SANDY CANDY® 19 and CRIME SCENE CANDY® marks to promote candy and confectionary 20 products that Defendants stated were meant to be “the same” as, and which 21 are in fact substantially identical to, Candyman’s products evinces 22 Defendants’ bad faith. Additionally, Defendants’ continued willful 23 infringement also evidences bad faith. 24 95. Because of Defendants’ unlawful use and infringement of 25 Candyman’s trade dress, Candyman has suffered and will suffer harm and injury to 26 its property rights and goodwill; and Defendants have been and will continue to be 27 unjustly enriched thereby. 28

35 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 37 of 99 Page ID #:609

1 96. Candyman is entitled to recover at least Defendants’ profits from their 2 infringing sales, Candyman’s actual damages, statutory damages, enhanced 3 damages, injunctive relief, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant at least to 4 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1116, and 1117. 5 COUNT II 6 Trademark Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and Common Law 7 97. Candyman realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this 8 Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 9 98. Candyman has prior rights in and is the owner of Candyman’s 10 registered trademarks and other unregistered marks, SANDY CANDY®, CRIME 11 SCENE CANDY®, CANDY BLOOD CLOTS™, and BOOGERS™. 12 99. Defendants’ products bearing or otherwise displaying or using 13 Candyman’s marks have infringed Candyman’s marks by using identical or similar 14 names in Defendants’ products. 15 100. Defendants’ use of their infringing product names and descriptions is 16 likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive the consumer as to the affiliation, 17 association, connection, endorsement, or authorization of Defendants and their 18 products, with Candyman; or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval by 19 Candyman of Defendants’ goods, services, or commercial activities. Further, at 20 least with respect to the BOOGERS mark, Defendants’ bad faith is also evinced by 21 their disregard for Candyman’s rights and the likelihood of confusion and mistake, 22 despite being notified of their unlawful conduct during the Opposition before the 23 U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 24 101. In addition to the alleged facts above, the following allegations 25 demonstrate likelihood of confusion: 26 a. Candyman’s SANDY CANDY®, CRIME SCENE CANDY®, 27 CANDY BLOOD CLOTS™, and BOOGERS™ marks are arbitrary and 28 have acquired secondary meaning.

36 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 38 of 99 Page ID #:610

1 b. Candyman and Can You Imagine That! Confections have done 2 extensive in-person and online, written, photographic, and video, promotion 3 and advertising featuring each of the marks. As examples, Candyman has 4 engaged with bloggers to review its products and manufacturing facility; its 5 founders have participated in numerous interviews in order to promote the 6 products associated with the marks; and displayed its products, which bear 7 the marks, through several online channels, including Amazon, its own 8 websites, and Candy Warehouse. 9 c. Candyman and Can You Imagine That! Confections have also 10 developed a substantial amount of business and goodwill through word of 11 mouth, including the support from the public who know of Mr. Klein’s 12 experiences in the candy industry. Candyman and Can You Imagine That! 13 Confections have provided superior goods and services to their customers; 14 and their customers choose and have chosen to do business with Candyman 15 because they intend to and believe they are supporting goods originating 16 from or affiliated with the Kleins and Mr. Klein’s businesses. Candyman’s 17 marks are associated with and indicators of Candyman’s outstanding service, 18 high-quality and innovative products, and strong reputation. As a result, 19 Candyman has developed substantial goodwill and customer support over 20 the years. 21 d. Defendants have used Candyman’s marks at least online, 22 including on social media, as described above. On information and belief, 23 Defendants’ online and social media activities use Candyman’s marks and 24 deceptively promote and encourage potential customers to purchase 25 Defendants’ candy products on Defendants’ websites or third-party online 26 sellers, e.g., Amazon, Candy Warehouse, and Etsy. 27 e. Defendants’ use of the each of Candyman’s marks is identical 28 to Candyman’s mark.

37 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 39 of 99 Page ID #:611

1 f. Defendants use Candyman’s marks for promoting, advertising, 2 and encouraging the sale of candy and confectionary that are substantially 3 identical to Candyman products. In addition, Defendants derived additional 4 benefit, including the promotion and sale of Defendants’ other products, by 5 improperly using to Candyman’s marks to garner the goodwill, publicity, and 6 reputation of Candyman, 7 g. Defendants’ use of Candyman’s arbitrary SANDY CANDY®, 8 CRIME SCENE CANDY®, CANDY BLOOD CLOTS™, and 9 BOOGERS™ marks to promote candy and confectionary products that 10 Defendants stated were meant to be “the same” as, and which are in fact 11 substantially identical to, Candyman’s products evinces Defendants’ bad 12 faith. Additionally, Defendants’ continued willful infringement also 13 evidences bad faith. 14 102. Because of Defendants’ unlawful use and infringement of 15 Candyman’s trade dress, Candyman has suffered and will suffer harm and injury to 16 its property rights and goodwill; and Defendants have been and will continue to be 17 unjustly enriched thereby. 18 103. Candyman are entitled to recover at least Defendants’ profits from 19 their infringing sales, Candyman’s actual damages, statutory damages, enhanced 20 damages, injunctive relief, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant at least to 21 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1116, and 1117. 22 COUNT III 23 False Designation of Origin and Descriptions Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) 24 104. Candyman realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this 25 Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 26 105. Based on the acts, conduct, and events described above—including, 27 for example, Defendants’ use of Candyman’s SANDY CANDY®, CRIME SCENE 28 CANDY®, CANDY BLOOD CLOTS™, and BOOGERS™ marks and

38 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 40 of 99 Page ID #:612

1 Candyman’s Can You Imagine That! Confections brand, and colorable imitations 2 thereof—Defendants violate § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 3 Defendants’ unauthorized use of Candyman’s trademarks and colorable imitations 4 thereof is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception about the affiliation, 5 connection, and association of Defendants with Candyman; and about the origin, 6 sponsorship, and approval of the Defendants’ products, at least by creating the false 7 and misleading impression that the products are manufactured by, authorized by, 8 or otherwise associated with Candyman or or its predecessors or its founders. 9 106. Candyman’s marks are entitled to protection under the Lanham Act. 10 Candyman and Can You Imagine That! Confections have extensively promoted 11 and used its trademarks in the United States. Through that extensive and 12 continuous use, Candyman’s trademarks have become well-known indicators of the 13 origin and quality of Candyman’s products. Candyman’s trademarks have also 14 acquired substantial secondary meaning in the marketplace. Moreover, 15 Candyman’s trademarks acquired this secondary meaning before Defendants 16 commenced their unlawful use of Candyman’s trademarks in connection with 17 Defendants’ products. 18 107. In addition to the alleged facts above, the following allegations 19 demonstrate likelihood of confusion: 20 a. Candyman’s SANDY CANDY®, CRIME SCENE CANDY®, 21 CANDY BLOOD CLOTS™, and BOOGERS™ marks, and Can You 22 Imagine That! Confections brand, are arbitrary and have acquired secondary 23 meaning. 24 b. Candyman and Can You Imagine That! Confections have done 25 extensive in-person and online, written, photographic, and video, promotion 26 and advertising featuring each of the marks. As examples, Candyman has 27 engaged with bloggers to review its products and manufacturing facility; its 28 founders have participated in numerous interviews in order to promote

39 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 41 of 99 Page ID #:613

1 Candyman’s products, marks, brands, and trade dress; and displayed its 2 products, which bear the marks, through several online channels, including 3 Amazon, its own websites, and Candy Warehouse. 4 c. Candyman and Can You Imagine That! Confections have also 5 developed a substantial amount of business and goodwill through word of 6 mouth, including the support from the public who know of Mr. Klein’s 7 experiences in the candy industry. Candyman and Can You Imagine That! 8 Confections have provided superior goods and services to their customers; 9 and their customers choose and have chosen to do business with Candyman 10 because they intend to and believe they are supporting goods originating 11 from or affiliated with the Kleins and Mr. Klein’s businesses. Candyman’s 12 marks are associated with and indicators of Candyman’s outstanding service, 13 high-quality and innovative products, and strong reputation. As a result, 14 Candyman has developed substantial goodwill and customer support over 15 the years. 16 d. Defendants have used Candyman’s marks at least online, 17 including on social media, as described above. On information and belief, 18 Defendants’ online and social media activities use Candyman’s marks and 19 deceptively promote and encourage potential customers to purchase 20 Defendants’ candy products on Defendants’ websites or third-party online 21 sellers, e.g., Amazon, Candy Warehouse, and Etsy. 22 e. Defendants’ use of the each of Candyman’s marks is identical 23 or a colorable imitation to Candyman’s mark. 24 f. Defendants use Candyman’s marks for promoting, advertising, 25 and encouraging the sale of candy and confectionary that are substantially 26 identical to Candyman products. In addition, derived additional benefit, 27 including the promotion and sale of Defendants’ other products, by 28

40 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 42 of 99 Page ID #:614

1 improperly using to Candyman’s marks to garner the goodwill, publicity, and 2 reputation of Candyman, 3 g. Defendants’ use of Candyman’s arbitrary SANDY CANDY®, 4 CRIME SCENE CANDY®, CANDY BLOOD CLOTS™, and 5 BOOGERS™ marks to promote candy and confectionary products that 6 Defendants stated were meant to be “the same” as, and which are in fact 7 substantially identical to, Candyman’s products evinces Defendants’ bad 8 faith. Additionally, Defendants’ continued willful infringement also 9 evidences bad faith. 10 108. Because of Defendants’ unlawful use and infringement of 11 Candyman’s trade dress, Candyman has suffered and will suffer harm and injury to 12 its property rights and goodwill; and Defendants have been and will continue to be 13 unjustly enriched thereby. 14 109. Candyman is entitled to recover at least Defendants’ profits from their 15 infringing sales, Candyman’s actual damages, statutory damages, enhanced 16 damages, injunctive relief, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant at least to 17 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1116, and 1117. 18 COUNT IV 19 Trade Dress Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) 20 110. Candyman realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this 21 Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 22 111. Candyman owns all right and title to the distinctive trade dress of its 23 Sandy Candy, Crime Scene Candy, candy Blood Clots, and candy Boogers 24 products, including the translucent vials with opaque caps/closures, the size and 25 horizontal position of the product label identifying the product, and the font and 26 colors used in the product labels (as shown in the images above). 27 112. Candyman’s trade dress of the aforementioned products are a 28 designation of origin that identifies Candyman as the exclusive source of its goods,

41 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 43 of 99 Page ID #:615

1 and distinguishes Candyman’s goods from the goods of others, including 2 Defendants, in the marketplace. 3 113. In addition to the alleged facts above, the following allegations 4 demonstrate likelihood of confusion: 5 a. Since prior to 1998, Candyman and Can You Imagine That! 6 Confections have expended substantial time and resources developing, 7 advertising, and promoting the product design and packaging for the Sandy 8 Candy, edible “sand” art candy, product, which embodies Candyman’s trade 9 dress. 10 b. Candyman’s distinctive trade dress for the Sandy Candy 11 products includes cylindrical bottles that: are made of flexible plastic that 12 allows the bottle to be depressed or “squeezed” to dispense the product; are 13 translucent or semi-translucent so that at least the color and remaining 14 quantity of the product may be viewed; are enclosed with a lid or a cap with 15 pointed tip; and each contain product of a single, uniform color. 16 c. Candyman’s distinctive trade dress for the Sandy Candy 17 products also includes tubes or vials with rounded bottom that: are made of 18 rigid or semi-rigid plastic; are translucent or semi-translucent so that at least 19 the color and remaining quantity of the product may be viewed; are enclosed 20 with a lid or cap with flat top; and each contain product of a single, uniform 21 color. 22 d. Since at least April 30, 2009, Candyman and Can You Imagine 23 That! Confections have expended substantial time and resources developing, 24 advertising, and promoting the product design and packaging for Crime 25 Scene Candy product, which embodies Candyman’s trade dress. 26 e. Candyman’s distinctive trade dress for the Crime Scene Candy 27 products includes tubes or vials with rounded bottom that: are made of rigid 28 or semi-rigid translucent plastic; are enclosed with a lid or cap with flat top;

42 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 44 of 99 Page ID #:616

1 and has a multicolored, rectangular-shaped label affixed such that the length 2 of the label runs along the length of the tube/vial (i.e., horizontally affixed) 3 and does not obscure the contents of the tube/vial from view.. 4 f. Since at least March 24, 2011, Candyman and Can You Imagine 5 That! Confections have expended substantial time and resources developing, 6 advertising, and promoting the product design and packaging for candy 7 Blood Clots product, which embodies Candyman’s trade dress. 8 g. Candyman’s distinctive trade dress for the Blood Clots products 9 includes tubes or vials with rounded bottom that: are made of rigid or semi- 10 rigid translucent plastic; are enclosed with an opaque lid or cap with flat top; 11 contains a product that is decoratively colored red; and has a rectangular- 12 shaped label affixed such that the length of the label runs along the length of 13 the tube/vial (i.e., horizontally affixed) and does not obscure the contents of 14 the tube/vial from view. 15 h. Since at least March 24, 2011, Candyman and Can You Imagine 16 That! Confections have expended substantial time and resources developing, 17 advertising, and promoting the product design and packaging for the candy 18 Boogers line of products, which embodies Candyman’s trade dress. 19 i. Candyman’s distinctive trade dress for the Boogers line of 20 products includes tubes or vials with rounded bottom that: are made of rigid 21 or semi-rigid translucent plastic; are enclosed with an opaque plastic lid or 22 cap with flat top; and has a rectangular-shaped label affixed such that the 23 length of the label runs along the length of the tube/vial (i.e., horizontally 24 affixed) and does not obscure the contents of the tube/vial from view. 25 j. Candyman and Can You Imagine That! Confections have 26 cultivated the unique and distinctive overall appearance of the 27 aforementioned products, such that consumers and jewelers are easily able 28

43 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 45 of 99 Page ID #:617

1 to identify such products as originating from and associated with Candyman. 2 Candyman’s product designs and packaging are distinctive. 3 k. Candyman and Can You Imagine That! Confections have done 4 extensive in-person and online, written, photographic, and video, promotion 5 and advertising featuring the product design, packaging, and overall 6 appearance of each of the products. 7 l. The design and appearance of Defendants’ replica “sand art” 8 products, Crime Scene Candy, candy Blood Clots, and variety of candy 9 Boogers products are substantially the same as Candyman’s product designs, 10 packaging, and overall appearance at least online, including on social media, 11 as described above. On information and belief, Defendants’ online and 12 social media activities use Candyman’s marks and deceptively promote and 13 encourage potential customers to purchase Defendants’ candy products on 14 Defendants’ websites or third-party online sellers, e.g., Amazon, Candy 15 Warehouse, and Etsy. 16 m. There is evidence of actual confusion created by Defendants’ 17 promotion of candy products substantially identical to Candyman’s products; 18 for example, those sold through Candy Warehouse. 19 n. Defendants advertise, promote and market their replica 20 products in the same channels of trade as Candyman’s products in the United 21 States, including this District. 22 o. Upon information and belief, Defendants deliberately adopted 23 the appearances of their candy sand art products, Crime Scene Candy, candy 24 Blood Clots, and candy Boogers in order to trade upon and benefit from the 25 hard-earned goodwill, publicity, and reputation of Candyman, Can You 26 Imagine That! Confections, and their founders; and Defendants have 27 deliberately tried to ride Candyman’s coattails to capitalize on Candyman’s 28 trade dress.

44 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 46 of 99 Page ID #:618

1 p. Defendants’ bad faith is evidenced at least by the similarity in 2 design, packaging, and appearance of Defendants’ candy “sand art” 3 products, Crime Scene Candy, candy Blood Clots, and candy Boogers; 4 Defendants’ use of Candyman’s marks; and Defendants’ continued use of 5 Candyman’s intellectual property and resulting likelihood of confusion, 6 despite having knowledge and being notified of their unlawful conduct. 7 Thus, Defendants’ infringement is willful and this action is an exceptional 8 case. 9 114. Because of Defendants’ unlawful use and infringement of 10 Candyman’s trade dress, Candyman has suffered and will suffer harm and injury to 11 its property rights and goodwill; and Defendants have been and will continue to be 12 unjustly enriched thereby. 13 115. Candyman is entitled to recover at least Defendants’ profits from their 14 infringing sales, Candyman’s actual damages, statutory damages, enhanced 15 damages, injunctive relief, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant at least to 16 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1117, and 1125. 17 COUNT V 18 Common Law Unfair Competition 19 116. Candyman realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this 20 Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 21 117. On information and belief, Defendants, by careful and considered 22 planning, have promoted the design, appearance, and descriptions of Defendants’ 23 replica candy “sand art” products, Crime Scene Candy, candy Blood Clots, and 24 candy Boogers products using Candyman’s trademarks to consumers and the 25 public, in order to confuse, mislead, and deceive, and obtain the acceptance of their 26 goods, services, or commercial activities, based on the merit, reputation, and 27 goodwill of Candyman, its brands, and its high-quality goods and services. 28

45 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 47 of 99 Page ID #:619

1 118. Defendants’ actions and conduct constitute oppression and malice in 2 that they have intentionally engaged in activities designed to confuse and deceive 3 the public and to divert to Defendants sales that Candyman would have otherwise 4 enjoyed. 5 119. Candyman also alleges that Defendants have misappropriated and 6 unlawfully exploited the valuable property rights and goodwill of Candyman and 7 Candyman’s products through Defendants’ use of Candyman’s intellectual 8 property. Because of this misappropriation, Candyman has suffered and will suffer 9 damages and injury to its property and goodwill, including destruction of the 10 business value of Candyman’s trade dress and trademarks, and Defendants have 11 been and will continue to be unjustly enriched thereby. 12 COUNT VI 13 Deceptive, False, and Misleading Advertising Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 14 §§ 17500 et seq. 15 120. Candyman realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this 16 Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 17 121. Since substantially prior to Defendants’ first use of Candyman’s 18 SANDY CANDY®, CRIME SCENE CANDY®, CANDY BLOOD CLOTS™, 19 and BOOGERS™ marks, and Candyman’s product designs, packaging, and 20 appearance, Candyman has had valid and protectable rights in its widely recognized 21 and famous trademarks and trade dress in connection with candy and confectionary. 22 122. On information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known of 23 Candyman’s ownership, rights to, and use of Candyman’s marks and trade dress 24 prior to Defendants’ use of the same to advertise, promote, market, distribute, sell, 25 or offer for sale their candy and confectionary products. 26 123. Further, Defendants’ unlicensed and unauthorized use of Candyman’s 27 trademarks and trade dress is likely to cause confusion and mislead and deceive 28 consumers and the public to believe there is a relationship between Defendants and

46 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 48 of 99 Page ID #:620

1 Candyman or Can You Imagine That! Confections; that Candyman or its 2 predecessors or its founders are affiliated or associated with, or sponsor, 3 Defendants; or that Defendants’ products are manufactured by, authorized by, 4 originated from, or otherwise associated with Candyman or its predecessors or 5 founders. Such falsely claimed association and misleading advertising violates 6 California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq. 7 124. Defendants’ conduct constitutes unlawful business acts or practices in 8 that Defendants’ deceptive, false, and misleading advertising and promotion are 9 likely to mislead or deceive the public into purchasing or consuming goods or 10 services they would not otherwise purchase or consume, resulting in Defendants 11 obtaining sales, profits, publicity, and goodwill that Candyman should have 12 received. 13 125. On information and belief, Defendants have acted with knowledge and 14 intention to mislead and deceive the public, and cause sales, profits, publicity, and 15 goodwill to be diverted from Candyman and, instead, unjustly enrich Defendants. 16 Such willful and malicious unlawful business practices support an award of 17 exemplary or punitive damages, under California Civil Code § 3294, in an amount 18 sufficient to deter them from, and make an example of, such continued and 19 egregious conduct. 20 126. Defendants should be required to restore to Candyman any and all 21 profits and unjust enrichment received as a result of its unlawful business acts or 22 practices. 23 COUNT VII 24 Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. 25 127. Defendants’ conduct constitutes unlawful business acts or practices in 26 that Defendants have engaged in at least (1) trademark infringement under Sections 27 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125; (2) false designation of 28 origin and false descriptions under Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125

47 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 49 of 99 Page ID #:621

1 (3) trade dress infringement under Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125; 2 and (4) deceptive, false, and misleading advertising under California Business and 3 Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq. 4 128. Defendants’ conduct constitutes unlawful business acts or practices in 5 that Defendants’ trademark infringement; false designation of origin and false 6 descriptions; trade dress infringement; and deceptive, false, and misleading 7 advertising and promotion are likely to—and indeed already have—mislead or 8 deceive the public into purchasing or consuming goods or services they would not 9 otherwise purchase or consume, resulting in Defendants obtaining sales, profits, 10 publicity, and goodwill that Candyman should have received. 11 129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful and unlawful 12 conduct described in this Complaint, Candyman has been, is now, and will continue 13 to be harmed and damaged by Defendants’ aforementioned acts. Defendants’ 14 unfair and unlawful business acts and practices have, and continue to, injure and 15 harm Candyman’s name, business reputation, property, and goodwill. 16 130. On information and belief, Defendants have acted with full knowledge 17 and notice of Candyman’s rights, and with the intention to infringe on or otherwise 18 violate such rights and, therefore, their aforementioned acts are willful, intentional, 19 oppressive, and malicious. Such conduct and unlawful business practices supports 20 an award of exemplary or punitive damages, under California Civil Code § 3294, 21 in an amount sufficient to deter them from, and make an example of, such continued 22 and egregious conduct. 23 131. Defendants should be required to restore to Candyman any and all 24 profits and unjust enrichment received as a result of its unlawful business acts or 25 practices. 26 JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY 27 132. Candyman realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this 28 Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

48 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 50 of 99 Page ID #:622

1 133. At all relevant times, Defendants were jointly engaged in the 2 commission of the aforementioned unlawful and tortious actions. On information 3 and belief, Defendants Sweets Indeed and Marie E. Dannettelle acted intentionally 4 and their actions caused a single, indivisible injury to Plaintiff. Accordingly, 5 Defendants are jointly and severally liable for all of Candyman’s damages as 6 pleaded herein. 7 JURY DEMAND 8 134. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 9 Candyman demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right. 10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 11 WHEREFORE, Candyman respectfully requests relief as follows: 12 a) That judgment be entered in favor of Candyman on its claims of 13 trademark infringement; false designation of origin; trade dress infringement; 14 deceptive, false, and misleading advertising; and unfair competition; 15 b) That judgment be entered finding that Defendants’ unlawful actions 16 and conduct were willful, malicious, oppressive, and intentional; 17 c) Compensatory damages for actual loss, statutory damages, and/or 18 unjust enrichment, as permitted by law, caused by Defendants’ unlawful acts and 19 conduct; 20 d) Enhanced, exemplary, and/or punitive damages for Defendants’ 21 willful and intentional violation of Candyman’s rights in its trademarks and trade 22 dress, as well as willful, malicious oppressive, and intentional unlawful conduct; 23 e) An award of Candyman’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs 24 associated with this action as provided for under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 or other such 25 applicable law; 26 f) Injunctive or other equitable relief, including an order to immediately 27 cease and discontinue making, using, promoting, advertising, marketing, 28 displaying, selling, or offering for sale any product or service that violates

49 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 51 of 99 Page ID #:623

1 Candyman’s rights; 2 g) Entry of an order directing Defendants to surrender to Candyman all 3 property, tangible and intangible, including, but not limited to, all goods, 4 merchandise, and materials that infringe or otherwise Candyman’s intellectual 5 property rights, and all tooling, templates, patterns, or other means and media used 6 by Defendants to copy, manufacture, reproduce, publish, display, distribute, 7 transmit, market, promote, license and sell products covered by Candyman’s trade 8 dress; 9 h) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and 10 i) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 11 12 DATED: May 6, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 13 14 By /s/ Jodie W. Cheng 15 16 JWC LEGAL Jodie W. Cheng (SBN 292330) 17 [email protected] 445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor 18 Los Angeles, California 90071 19 Telephone: (415) 293-8308 20 Counsel for Candyman Kitchens Inc. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

50 Case No. 2:20-cv-841-PA-AGR CANDYMAN’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 52 of 99 Page ID #:624

EXHIBIT A Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 53 of 99 Page ID #:625 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 54 of 99 Page ID #:626 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 55 of 99 Page ID #:627 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 56 of 99 Page ID #:628

EXHIBIT B Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 57 of 99 Page ID #:629

Reg. No. 5,670,600 Candyman Kitchens (FLORIDA CORPORATION) 8749 Ne Jacksonville Rd. Registered Feb. 05, 2019 Anthony, FLORIDA 32617 Int. Cl.: 30 CLASS 30: Candy FIRST USE 4-30-2009; IN COMMERCE 4-30-2009 Trademark THE MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHARACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY Principal Register PARTICULAR FONT STYLE, SIZE OR COLOR No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the following apart from the mark as shown: "CANDY"

SER. NO. 88-085,924, FILED 08-21-2018 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 58 of 99 Page ID #:630

REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION

WARNING: YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE DOCUMENTS BELOW DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS.

Requirements in the First Ten Years* What and When to File:

First Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) between the 5th and 6th years after the registration date. See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k. If the declaration is accepted, the registration will continue in force for the remainder of the ten-year period, calculated from the registration date, unless cancelled by an order of the Commissioner for Trademarks or a federal court.

Second Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application for Renewal between the 9th and 10th years after the registration date.* See 15 U.S.C. §1059.

Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods* What and When to File:

You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application for Renewal between every 9th and 10th-year period, calculated from the registration date.*

Grace Period Filings*

The above documents will be accepted as timely if filed within six months after the deadlines listed above with the payment of an additional fee.

*ATTENTION MADRID PROTOCOL REGISTRANTS: The holder of an international registration with an extension of protection to the United States under the Madrid Protocol must timely file the Declarations of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) referenced above directly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The time periods for filing are based on the U.S. registration date (not the international registration date). The deadlines and grace periods for the Declarations of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) are identical to those for nationally issued registrations. See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k. However, owners of international registrations do not file renewal applications at the USPTO. Instead, the holder must file a renewal of the underlying international registration at the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, under Article 7 of the Madrid Protocol, before the expiration of each ten-year term of protection, calculated from the date of the international registration. See 15 U.S.C. §1141j. For more information and renewal forms for the international registration, see http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/.

NOTE: Fees and requirements for maintaining registrations are subject to change. Please check the USPTO website for further information. With the exception of renewal applications for registered extensions of protection, you can file the registration maintenance documents referenced above online at h ttp://www.uspto.gov.

NOTE: A courtesy e-mail reminder of USPTO maintenance filing deadlines will be sent to trademark owners/holders who authorize e-mail communication and maintain a current e-mail address with the USPTO. To ensure that e-mail is authorized and your address is current, please use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Correspondence Address and Change of Owner Address Forms available at http://www.uspto.gov.

Page: 2 of 2 / RN # 5670600 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 59 of 99 Page ID #:631

EXHIBIT C Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 60 of 99 Page ID #:632

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 02/28/2021) Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register TEAS Plus Application

Serial Number: 88666939 Filing Date: 10/24/2019

NOTE: Data fields with the * are mandatory under TEAS Plus. The wording "(if applicable)" appears where the field is only mandatory under the facts of the particular application.

The table below presents the data as entered.

Input Field Entered TEAS Plus YES MARK INFORMATION

*MARK Candy Blood Clots

*STANDARD CHARACTERS YES

USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE YES

LITERAL ELEMENT Candy Blood Clots 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 Candyman Kitchens

DBA/AKA/TA/FORMERLY DBA Candyman Kitchens

*STREET 8749 NE Jacksonville Rd.

*CITY ANTHONY

*STATE Florida (Required for U.S. applicants)

*COUNTRY United States

*ZIP/POSTAL CODE 32617 (Required for U.S. and certain international addresses)

EMAIL ADDRESS [email protected]

AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION

*TYPE CORPORATION

* STATE/COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION Florida GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION

*INTERNATIONAL CLASS 030

*IDENTIFICATION Candy Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 61 of 99 Page ID #:633

*FILING BASIS SECTION 1(a)

FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE At least as early as 03/24/2011

FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE At least as early as 03/24/2011

SPECIMEN \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT FILE NAME(S) 17\886\669\88666939\xml1\ FTK0003.JPG \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT 17\886\669\88666939\xml1\ FTK0004.JPG ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS INFORMATION

*TRANSLATION (if applicable)

*TRANSLITERATION (if applicable)

*CLAIMED PRIOR REGISTRATION (if applicable)

*CONSENT (NAME/LIKENESS) (if applicable)

*CONCURRENT USE CLAIM (if applicable) CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION

*NAME Candyman Kitchens

FIRM NAME Candyman Kitchens

*STREET 8749 NE Jacksonville Rd.

*CITY ANTHONY

*STATE Florida (Required for U.S. addresses)

*COUNTRY United States

*ZIP/POSTAL CODE 32617

*EMAIL ADDRESS [email protected]

*AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes FEE INFORMATION

APPLICATION FILING OPTION TEAS Plus

NUMBER OF CLASSES 1

FEE PER CLASS 225

*TOTAL FEE PAID 225 SIGNATURE INFORMATION

* SIGNATURE /David Klein/

* SIGNATORY'S NAME David Klein

* SIGNATORY'S POSITION Owner

SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER 352-622-6397

* DATE SIGNED 10/24/2019 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 62 of 99 Page ID #:634 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 63 of 99 Page ID #:635

Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

TEAS Plus Application

Serial Number: 88666939 Filing Date: 10/24/2019 To the Commissioner for Trademarks:

MARK: Candy Blood Clots (Standard Characters, see mark) The literal element of the mark consists of Candy Blood Clots. The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size, or color. The applicant, Candyman Kitchens, DBA Candyman Kitchens, a corporation of Florida, having an address of 8749 NE Jacksonville Rd. ANTHONY, Florida 32617 United States [email protected] 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:

For specific filing basis information for each item, you must view the display within the Input Table. International Class 030: Candy

Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods/services. The applicant attaches, or will later submit, one specimen as a JPG/PDF image file showing the mark as used in commerce on or in connection with any item in the class of listed goods/services, regardless of whether the mark itself is in the standard character format or is a stylized or design mark. The specimen image file may be in color, and the image must be in color if color is being claimed as a feature of the mark.

In International Class 030, the mark was first used by the applicant or the applicant's related company or licensee predecessor in interest at least as early as 03/24/2011, and first used in commerce at least as early as 03/24/2011, and is now in use in such commerce. The applicant is submitting one(or more) specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce on or in connection with any item in the class of listed goods/services, . Specimen File1 Specimen File2

The applicant's current Correspondence Information: Candyman Kitchens Candyman Kitchens 8749 NE Jacksonville Rd. ANTHONY, Florida 32617 [email protected] (authorized).

Email Authorization: I authorize the USPTO to send email correspondence concerning the application to the applicant or the applicant's attorney, or the applicant's domestic representative at the email address provided in this application. I understand that a valid email 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 the loss of TEAS Plus status and a requirement to submit an additional processing fee of $125 per international class of goods/services.

A fee payment in the amount of $225 has been submitted with the application, representing payment for 1 class(es).

Declaration

Basis: Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 64 of 99 Page ID #:636

If the applicant is filing the application based on use in commerce under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a):

The signatory believes that the applicant is the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered; The mark is in use 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 To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, the facts recited in the application are accurate.

AND/OR If the applicant is filing the application based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), § 1126(d), and/or § 1126(e):

The signatory believes that the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce; The applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the application; and To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, the facts recited in the application are accurate. 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. To the best of the signatory's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the allegations and other factual contentions made above have evidentiary support. 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 submission 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: /David Klein/ Date: 10/24/2019 Signatory's Name: David Klein Signatory's Position: Owner Signatory's Phone Number: 352-622-6397 Payment Sale Number: 88666939 Payment Accounting Date: 10/24/2019

Serial Number: 88666939 Internet Transmission Date: Thu Oct 24 12:03:28 EDT 2019 TEAS Stamp: USPTO/FTK-XX.XXX.XX.XXX-2019102412032814 6727-88666939-6101f2f5a84b0ca2e812d66ff4 88d7d89fae577db92e925112422034f996480-CC -03272769-20191024114529521248 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 65 of 99 Page ID #:637 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 66 of 99 Page ID #:638 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 67 of 99 Page ID #:639 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 68 of 99 Page ID #:640 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 69 of 99 Page ID #:641 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 70 of 99 Page ID #:642 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 71 of 99 Page ID #:643

EXHIBIT D Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 72 of 99 Page ID #:644

Serial Number: 88748048 Filing Date: 01/06/2020

NOTE: Data fields with the * are mandatory under TEAS Plus. The wording "(if applicable)" appears where the field is only mandatory under the facts of the particular application.

The table below presents the data as entered.

Input Field Entered TEAS Plus YES MARK INFORMATION

*MARK BOOGERS

*STANDARD CHARACTERS YES

USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE YES

LITERAL ELEMENT BOOGERS 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 Candyman Kitchens

*STREET 8749 NE Jacksonville Rd.

*CITY Anthony

*STATE Florida (Required for U.S. applicants)

*COUNTRY United States

*ZIP/POSTAL CODE 32617 (Required for U.S. and certain international addresses) LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION

*TYPE CORPORATION

* STATE/COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION Florida GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION

*INTERNATIONAL CLASS 030

*IDENTIFICATION Candy; Hard candies

*FILING BASIS SECTION 1(a)

FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE At least as early as 10/03/2011

FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE At least as early as 10/03/2011 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 73 of 99 Page ID #:645

SPECIMEN \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT FILE NAME(S) 17\887\480\88748048\xml1\ FTK0003.JPG

\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT 17\887\480\88748048\xml1\ FTK0004.JPG

\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT 17\887\480\88748048\xml1\ FTK0005.JPG

\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT 17\887\480\88748048\xml1\ FTK0006.JPG

\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT 17\887\480\88748048\xml1\ FTK0007.JPG

\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT 17\887\480\88748048\xml1\ FTK0008.JPG

SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION Product packaging showing trademark ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS INFORMATION

*TRANSLATION (if applicable)

*TRANSLITERATION (if applicable)

*CLAIMED PRIOR REGISTRATION (if applicable)

*CONSENT (NAME/LIKENESS) (if applicable)

*CONCURRENT USE CLAIM (if applicable) ATTORNEY INFORMATION

NAME Nyall Engfield

ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER XXX

YEAR OF ADMISSION XXXX

U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY XX

FIRM NAME Calstrat Law Group

STREET 16950 Via de Santa Fe Suite 5060-107

CITY Rancho Santa Fe

STATE California

COUNTRY United States

ZIP/POSTAL CODE 92067

PHONE 760-234-1231

EMAIL ADDRESS [email protected]

AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes

OTHER APPOINTED ATTORNEY Nyall Engfield CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION

*NAME Nyall Engfield

FIRM NAME Calstrat Law Group

*STREET 16950 Via de Santa Fe Suite 5060-107 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 74 of 99 Page ID #:646

*CITY Rancho Santa Fe

*STATE California (Required for U.S. addresses)

*COUNTRY United States

*ZIP/POSTAL CODE 92067

PHONE 760-234-1231

*EMAIL ADDRESS [email protected]; [email protected]

*AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes FEE INFORMATION

APPLICATION FILING OPTION TEAS Plus

NUMBER OF CLASSES 1

FEE PER CLASS 225

*TOTAL FEE PAID 225 SIGNATURE INFORMATION

* SIGNATURE /s/

* SIGNATORY'S NAME Nyall Engfield

* SIGNATORY'S POSITION Attorney of Record, CA Bar

SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER 760-234-1231

* DATE SIGNED 01/06/2020 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 75 of 99 Page ID #:647

Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

TEAS Plus Application

Serial Number: 88748048 Filing Date: 01/06/2020 To the Commissioner for Trademarks:

MARK: BOOGERS (Standard Characters, see mark) The literal element of the mark consists of BOOGERS. The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size, or color. The applicant, Candyman Kitchens, a corporation of Florida, having an address of 8749 NE Jacksonville Rd. Anthony, Florida 32617 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:

For specific filing basis information for each item, you must view the display within the Input Table. International Class 030: Candy; Hard candies

In International Class 030, the mark was first used by the applicant or the applicant's related company or licensee predecessor in interest at least as early as 10/03/2011, and first used in commerce at least as early as 10/03/2011, and is now in use in such commerce. The applicant is submitting one(or more) specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce on or in connection with any item in the class of listed goods/services, consisting of a(n) Product packaging showing trademark. Specimen File1 Specimen File2 Specimen File3 Specimen File4 Specimen File5 Specimen File6

The applicant hereby appoints Nyall Engfield. Other appointed attorneys are Nyall Engfield. Nyall Engfield of Calstrat Law Group, is a member of the XX bar, admitted to the bar in XXXX, bar membership no. XXX, and the attorney(s) is located at 16950 Via de Santa Fe Suite 5060-107 Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067 United States 760-234-1231(phone) [email protected] (authorized).

Nyall Engfield submitted the following statement: The attorney of record is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state, the District of Columbia, or any U.S. Commonwealth or territory. The applicant's current Correspondence Information: Nyall Engfield Calstrat Law Group 16950 Via de Santa Fe Suite 5060-107 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 76 of 99 Page ID #:648

Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067 760-234-1231(phone) [email protected]; [email protected] (authorized).

A fee payment in the amount of $225 has been submitted with the application, representing payment for 1 class(es).

Declaration

Basis: If the applicant is filing the application based on use in commerce under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a):

AND/OR If the applicant is filing the application based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), § 1126(d), and/or § 1126(e):

Signature: /s/ Date: 01/06/2020 Signatory's Name: Nyall Engfield Signatory's Position: Attorney of Record, CA Bar Signatory's Phone Number: 760-234-1231 Payment Sale Number: 88748048 Payment Accounting Date: 01/06/2020

Serial Number: 88748048 Internet Transmission Date: Mon Jan 06 15:00:25 EST 2020 TEAS Stamp: USPTO/FTK-XX.XXX.XXX.XX-2020010615002547 6424-88748048-7002e5fa457c363da8c11ac688 4617d9fc5acf549852fb473e88df9df55e2321a7 -CC-00230767-20200106145147633940 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 77 of 99 Page ID #:649 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 78 of 99 Page ID #:650 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 79 of 99 Page ID #:651 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 80 of 99 Page ID #:652 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 81 of 99 Page ID #:653 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 82 of 99 Page ID #:654 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 83 of 99 Page ID #:655 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 84 of 99 Page ID #:656 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 85 of 99 Page ID #:657 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 86 of 99 Page ID #:658 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 87 of 99 Page ID #:659 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 88 of 99 Page ID #:660 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 89 of 99 Page ID #:661 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 90 of 99 Page ID #:662 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 91 of 99 Page ID #:663

EXHIBIT E Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 92 of 99 Page ID #:664

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA982112 Filing date: 06/20/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Notice of Opposition

Notice is hereby given that the following party opposes registration of the indicated application. Opposer Information

Name Candyman Kitchens Entity Corporation Citizenship Florida Address 8749 NE Jacksonville Rd Anthony, FL 32617 UNITED STATES

Correspondence Nyall Engfield information TrademarKraft 500 Westover Dr Suite 12298 Sanford, NC 27330 UNITED STATES [email protected] 6132033700

Applicant Information

Application No 88299940 Publication date 05/28/2019 Opposition Filing 06/20/2019 Opposition Peri- 06/27/2019 Date od Ends Applicant Sweets Indeed, LLC 1032 E Edna Place Covina, CA 91724 UNITED STATES Goods/Services Affected by Opposition

Class 030. First Use: 2017/09/22 First Use In Commerce: 2017/12/09 All goods and services in the class are opposed, namely: Candy Grounds for Opposition

Applicant not rightful owner of mark for identified Trademark Act Section 1 goods or services

Attachments BOOGERS NOTICE OF OPPOSITION.pdf(196957 bytes )

Signature /nyall engfield/ Name Nyall Engfield Date 06/20/2019 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 93 of 99 Page ID #:665

,17+(81,7('67$7(63$7(17$1'75$'(0$5.2)),&(%()25(b 7+(75$'(0$5.75,$/$1'$33($/%2$5'bb b ,QUH$SSOLFDWLRQ1RIRUWKHPDUN%22*(56b b &DQG\PDQ.LWFKHQVb 2SSRVHU 2SS1RBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBb b 9b b 6ZHHWV,QGHHG//&b b $SSOLFDQWb b b 127,&(2)23326,7,21bb b &DQG\PDQ.LWFKHQV ŗ2SSRVHUŘ EHOLHYHVWKDWLWZLOOEHGDPDJHGE\WKHUHJLVWUDWLRQRIWKHDERYHb LGHQWLILHGPDUNDQGKHUHE\RSSRVHVUHJLVWUDWLRQRIWKHPDUNLQDOOFODVVHVOLVWHGLQWKHb DSSOLFDWLRQSXUVXDQWWRWKHSURYLVLRQVRI6HFWLRQRIWKH7UDGHPDUN$FWRI86&b Ŧbb b $VJURXQGVIRUWKHRSSRVLWLRQLWLVDOOHJHGWKDWbb b 2SSRVHULVWKHRZQHURIDOOULJKWWLWOHDQGLQWHUHVWLQDQGWRWKHPDUN%22*(56XVHGDORQHRUb LQFRPELQDWLRQZLWKDGHVLJQ FROOHFWLYHO\2SSRVHU V%22*(560DUNV IRUDYDULHW\RIb FRQIHFWLRQDU\DQGFDQG\b b

Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 94 of 99 Page ID #:666

2SSRVHUŖVPDUNVDUH3,*%22*(5681,&251%22*(56=20%,(%22*(56b *+267%22*(56DQG'5$*21%22*(56DPRQJRWKHU%22*(56PDUNVbb 6LQFHSULRUWRWKHDFWVFRPSODLQHGRILQWKLVQRWLFH2SSRVHUHVWDEOLVKHGFRPPRQODZULJKWVLQb 2SSRVHU V%22*(560DUNVWKURXJKFRQWLQXRXVXVHRQLWVFDQG\SURGXFWVbb b 2SSRVHU&DQG\PDQ.LWFKHQVZDVIRXQGHGLQ0DUFKLQ)ORULGDDQG2SSRVHU Vb %22*(560DUNVKDYHEHHQXVHGE\2SSRVHUFRQWLQXRXVO\VLQFHLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHb VDOHRIFRQIHFWLRQDU\DQGFDQG\VLQFHWKHQb

$VDUHVXOW2SSRVHU V%22*(560DUNVKDYHEHFRPHDGLVWLQFWLYHLQGLFDWRURIWKHRULJLQb RI2SSRVHUŖVJRRGVDQGDVDYDOXDEOHV\PERORI2SSRVHUŖVYDOXDEOHJRRGZLOObb

2SSRVHU V%22*(560DUNVKDYHEHHQXVHGDFURVVWKH86DQGKDYHEHHQFRQWLQXRXVO\b LQFRPPHUFHVLQFHORQJSULRUWRWKHILOLQJGDWHRI$SSOLFDWLRQ1RRUDQ\GDWHb RIILUVWXVHWKDWPD\EHDOOHJHGE\$SSOLFDQWbb

,Q0DUFK&DQ

&DQ

1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ2SSRVHUŖVSULRUHVWDEOLVKHGULJKWVLQ2SSRVHUŖV%22*(560DUNVb $SSOLFDQWILOHGWKHDERYHPHQWLRQHGDSSOLFDWLRQVHHNLQJWRUHJLVWHU%22*(56IRUFDQG\LQb &ODVVbb

$SSOLFDQWLVVHOOLQJFDQG\SURGXFWVXQGHUWKHQDPHV',126$85%22*(56b )/$0,1*2%22*(560(50$,'%22*(561$5:+$/%22*(563833

 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 95 of 99 Page ID #:667

$SSOLFDQWŖVPDUNDQGSURSRVHGJRRGVDUHVRVLPLODUWR2SSRVHUŖV%22*(56b 0DUNVDQG2SSRVHUŖVJRRGVDVWRFUHDWHDOLNHOLKRRGRIFRQIXVLRQ$SSOLFDQWŖVb SURGXFWLVRQWKHOHIWZKLOH2SSRVHUŖVSURGXFWLVRQWKHULJKW

8SRQVHHLQJ$SSOLFDQWŖVPDUNPHPEHUVRIWKHSXEOLFDUHOLNHO\WREHFRQIXVHGb PLVWDNHQRUPLVOHGLQWREHOLHYLQJWKDW$SSOLFDQWKDVREWDLQHGDOLFHQVHIURP2SSRVHURUb WKDW$SSOLFDQWLVRWKHUZLVHDIILOLDWHGRUFRQQHFWHGZLWKRUVSRQVRUHGE\2SSRVHURUWKDWb 2SSRVHUKDVHQGRUVHG$SSOLFDQWŖVJRRGVbb

2QLQIRUPDWLRQDQGEHOLHI$SSOLFDQWKDVXVHGRULQWHQGVWRXVHWKHPDUNDWLVVXHZLWKDb GHOLEHUDWHLQWHQWWRFDXVHFRQIXVLRQDQGWRFDXVHFRQVXPHUVWREHOLHYHWKDWLWLVDVVRFLDWHGb ZLWKRUDSSURYHGRUHQGRUVHGE\2SSRVHUbb

8SRQLQIRUPDWLRQDQGEHOLHI$SSOLFDQWILOHGWKHDSSOLFDWLRQZLWKNQRZOHGJHRI2SSRVHUb DVWKHULJKWIXORZQHURIWKH%22*(56WUDGHPDUNVDQGWKHNQRZOHGJHWKDWWKHVLJQHGb $JUHHPHQWVSHFLILFDOO\H[FOXGHGWUDGHPDUNVLQFOXGLQJWKH2SSRVHUŖV%22*(56PDUNVb

8SRQLQIRUPDWLRQDQGEHOLHI$SSOLFDQWDGRSWHGRULQWHQGVWRDGRSWLWVDOOHJHGPDUNb ZLWKDGHOLEHUDWHLQWHQWWRFUHDWHWKHIDOVHLPSUHVVLRQWKDW$SSOLFDQWRULWVJRRGVDUHb

 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 96 of 99 Page ID #:668

OLFHQVHGHQGRUVHGRUDSSURYHGE\2SSRVHUbb

8SRQLQIRUPDWLRQDQGEHOLHI$SSOLFDQWDGRSWHGRULQWHQGVWRDGRSWLWVDOOHJHGPDUNZLWKb DGHOLEHUDWHLQWHQWWRWDNHDGYDQWDJHRIWKHJRRGZLOOHVWDEOLVKHGE\2SSRVHUWKURXJKLWVXVHb RI2SSRVHU V%22*(560DUNVbb

b /,.(/,+22'2)&21)86,21Ŧ G bb b 7KHPDUNWKDW$SSOLFDQWVHHNVWRUHJLVWHUVRUHVHPEOHV2SSRVHUŖV%22*(560DUNVWKDWWKHb XVHDQGUHJLVWUDWLRQWKHUHRILVOLNHO\WRFDXVHFRQIXVLRQPLVWDNHDQGGHFHSWLRQDVWRWKHVRXUFHb RURULJLQRI$SSOLFDQW VJRRGVDQGZLOOLQMXUHDQGGDPDJH2SSRVHUDQGWKHJRRGZLOODQGb UHSXWDWLRQV\PEROL]HGE\2SSRVHUŖV%22*(560DUNVbb b /LNHOLKRRGRIFRQIXVLRQLVHQKDQFHGE\WKHIDFWWKDW$SSOLFDQWŖVJRRGVDUHLGHQWLFDOWRRUVRb UHODWHGWRWKHJRRGVVROGXQGHU2SSRVHUŖV%22*(560DUNVWKDWWKHSXEOLFLVOLNHO\WREHb FRQIXVHGWREHGHFHLYHGDQGWRDVVXPHHUURQHRXVO\WKDW$SSOLFDQW VJRRGVDQGVHUYLFHVDUHWKRVHb RI2SSRVHURUWKDW$SSOLFDQWLVLQVRPHZD\FRQQHFWHGZLWKOLFHQVHGRUVSRQVRUHGE\RUb DIILOLDWHGZLWK2SSRVHUDOOWR2SSRVHUŖVLUUHSDUDEOHGDPDJHbb b /LNHOLKRRGRIFRQIXVLRQLQWKLVFDVHLVHQKDQFHGE\WKHIDFWWKDWWKHVDPHLQGLYLGXDOVWKDWb PLJKWSXUFKDVH$SSOLFDQW VJRRGVDUHSURVSHFWLYHSXUFKDVHUVRISURGXFWVVROGXQGHU2SSRVHUŖVb %22*(560DUNVbb b /LNHOLKRRGRIFRQIXVLRQLQWKLVFDVHLVHQKDQFHGE\WKHIDFWWKDW$SSOLFDQWŖVDOOHJHGPDUNb %22*(56LVYLUWXDOO\LGHQWLFDOWR2SSRVHUŖV%22*(560DUNVbb b bb

 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 97 of 99 Page ID #:669

:+(5()25(2SSRVHUSUD\VWKDWWKLVRSSRVLWLRQEHVXVWDLQHGDQGWKDWUHJLVWUDWLRQEHGHQLHGbb b &DQG\PDQ.LWFKHQVb 'DWHG-XQHb %\V1\DOO(QJILHOGbb /DZ2IILFHVRI1\DOO(QJILHOGb :HVWRYHU'U6XLWHbb 6DQIRUG1&bb b RUGHUV#WUDGHPDUNUDIWFRPb b $WWRUQH\IRU2SSRVHUbb

 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 98 of 99 Page ID #:670

EXHIBIT F Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 35 Filed 06/01/20 Page 99 of 99 Page ID #:671 EXHIBIT 2 Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:672

1 MANDOUR & ASSOCIATES, APC 2 JOSEPH A. MANDOUR, III (SBN 188896) Email: [email protected] 3 BEN T. LILA (SBN 246808) 4 Email: [email protected] 8605 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1500 5 Los Angeles, CA 90069 6 Telephone: (858) 487-9300 7 Attorneys for Defendants, Sweets Indeed, LLC and Marie E. Dannettelle 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 13 ) CANDYMAN KITCHENS ) Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR 14 INC., ) 15 ) DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD Plaintiff, ) AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 ) 17 v. ) 18 ) SWEETS INDEED, LLC; ) 19 MARIE E. DANNETTELLE, ) 20 ) Defendants. ) 21 ) 22 ) ) 23 ) 24 ) 25 26 \\ 27 \\ 28 \\

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -1 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:673

1 Pursuant to Rule 12 and 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2 defendants SWEETS INDEED, LLC (“Sweets Indeed”) and Marie E. Dannettelle 3 (“Ms. Dannettelle”) (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their respective 4 counsel, hereby answers the Third Amended Complaint of plaintiff CANDYMAN 5 KITCHENS INC. and demand a jury trial as follows: 6 INTRODUCTION 7 8 1. Denied. 9 2. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to respond to 10 the truth or the falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Third Amended 11 Complaint and on that basis deny said allegations. 12 3. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to respond to 13 the truth or the falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Third Amended 14 Complaint and on that basis deny said allegations. 15 4. Denied. 16 5. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to respond to 17 the truth or the falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Third Amended 18 Complaint and on that basis deny said allegations. 19 6. Defendants admit Sweets Indeed purchased a manufacturing facility in 20 Covina, California and that it sold dessert toppings and cake decorations. 21 7. Denied. 22 8. Denied. 23 9. Denied. 24 10. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to respond to 25 the truth or the falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Third Amended 26 Complaint and on that basis deny said allegations. 27 11. Denied. 28 12. Denied.

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -2 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:674

1 13. Defendants admit plaintiff Candyman Kitchens Inc. has filed the Third 2 Amended Complaint. Defendants deny plaintiffs are entitled to any relief. 3 14. Denied. 4 PARTIES 5 15. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to respond to 6 the truth or the falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Third Amended 7 Complaint and on that basis deny said allegations. 8 16. Admit. 9 17. Defendants admit Marie E. Dannettelle is an individual residing in the 10 State of California. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 17 of 11 the Third Amended Complaint. 12 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13 18. Defendants admit plaintiffs allege that the Third Amended Complaint 14 alleges various claims under the Lanham Act and California state law. Defendants 15 deny plaintiff is entitled to any relief. 16 19. Defendants allege that the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Third 17 Amended Complaint are a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To 18 the extent the allegations are factual in nature, defendants deny said allegations. 19 20. Defendants allege that the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Third 20 Amended Complaint are a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To 21 the extent the allegations are factual in nature, defendants deny said allegations. 22 21. Defendants allege that the allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Third 23 Amended Complaint are a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To 24 the extent the allegations are factual in nature, defendants deny said allegations. 25 22. Defendants allege that the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Third 26 Amended Complaint are a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To 27 the extent the allegations are factual in nature, defendants deny said allegations. 28

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -3 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:675

1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 2 23. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to respond to 3 the truth or the falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Third Amended 4 Complaint and on that basis deny said allegations. 5 24. Denied. 6 25. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to respond to 7 the truth or the falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Third Amended 8 Complaint and on that basis deny said allegations. 9 26. Denied. 10 27. Denied. 11 28. Denied. 12 29. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to respond to 13 the truth or the falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Third Amended 14 Complaint and on that basis deny said allegations. 15 30. Denied. 16 31. Defendants admit webpage excerpts are shown in the Third Amended 17 Complaint. 18 32. Denied. 19 33. Defendants admit webpage excerpts are shown in the Third Amended 20 Complaint. 21 34. Denied. 22 35. Denied. 23 36. Defendants admit images are attached to the Third Amended 24 Complaint. 25 37. Defendants admit images are attached to the Third Amended 26 Complaint. 27 38. Defendants admit images are attached to the Third Amended 28 Complaint.

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -4 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:676

1 39. Defendants admit images are attached to the Third Amended 2 Complaint. 3 40. Denied. 4 41. Defendants admit Exhibit A is attached to the Complaint. Defendants 5 deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Third Amended Complaint. 6 42. Defendants admit Exhibit B is attached to the Complaint. Defendants 7 deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Third Amended Complaint. 8 43. Defendants admit Exhibit C is attached to the Complaint. Defendants 9 deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Third Amended Complaint. 10 44. Defendants admit Exhibit D is attached to the Complaint. Defendants 11 deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Third Amended Complaint. 12 45. Denied. 13 46. Denied. 14 47. Denied. 15 48. Denied. 16 49. Denied. 17 50. Denied. 18 51. Denied. 19 52. Denied. 20 53. Denied. 21 54. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to respond to 22 the truth or the falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Third Amended 23 Complaint and on that basis deny said allegations. 24 55. Defendants admit Exhibit E is attached to the Complaint. Defendants 25 deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 55 of the Third Amended Complaint. 26 56. Defendants admit that Candyman Kitchens Inc. made allegations in a 27 Notice of Opposition. Defendants deny said allegations. 28 57. Defendants admit that Candyman Kitchens Inc. made allegations in a

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -5 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:677

1 Notice of Opposition. Defendants deny said allegations. 2 58. Defendants admit the docket for TTAB Opposition Proceeding No. 3 91248988 speaks for itself. 4 59. Denied. 5 60. Denied. 6 61. Denied. 7 62. Denied. 8 63. Defendants admit Exhibit F is attached to the Complaint. Defendants 9 deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 63 of the Third Amended Complaint. 10 64. Denied. 11 65. Denied. 12 66. Denied. 13 67. Denied. 14 68. Defendants admit edited images are attached to the Third Amended 15 Complaint. 16 69. Denied. 17 70. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to respond to 18 the truth or the falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Third Amended 19 Complaint and on that basis deny said allegations. 20 71. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to respond to 21 the truth or the falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Third Amended 22 Complaint and on that basis deny said allegations. 23 72. Denied. 24 73. Defendants admit edited images are attached to the Third Amended 25 Complaint. 26 74. Defendants admit edited images are attached to the Third Amended 27 Complaint. 28 75. Defendants admit edited images are attached to the Third Amended

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -6 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:678

1 Complaint. 2 76. Defendants admit edited images are attached to the Third Amended 3 Complaint. 4 77. Defendants admit edited images are attached to the Third Amended 5 Complaint. 6 78. Defendants admit edited images are attached to the Third Amended 7 Complaint. 8 79. Defendants admit edited images are attached to the Third Amended 9 Complaint. 10 80. Denied. 11 81. Defendants admit edited images are attached to the Third Amended 12 Complaint. 13 82. Defendants admit edited images are attached to the Third Amended 14 Complaint. 15 83. Defendants admit edited images are attached to the Third Amended 16 Complaint. 17 84. Denied. 18 85. Denied. 19 86. Denied. 20 87. Denied. 21 COUNT I 22 88. Defendants re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in 23 paragraphs 1 through 87, as if set forth fully herein. 24 89. Denied. 25 90. Denied. 26 91. Denied. 27 92. Denied. 28 93. Denied.

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -7 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:679

1 94. Denied. 2 95. Denied. 3 96. Denied. 4 COUNT II 5 97. Defendants re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in 6 paragraphs 1 through 96, as if set forth fully herein. 7 98. Denied. 8 99. Denied. 9 100. Denied. 10 101. Denied. 11 102. Denied. 12 103. Denied. 13 COUNT III 14 104. Defendants re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in 15 paragraphs 1 through 105, as if set forth fully herein. 16 105. Denied. 17 106. Denied. 18 107. Denied. 19 108. Denied. 20 109. Denied. 21 COUNT IV 22 110. Defendants re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in 23 paragraphs 1 through 109, as if set forth fully herein. 24 111. Denied. 25 112. Denied. 26 113. Denied. 27 114. Denied. 28 115. Denied.

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -8 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:680

1 COUNT V 2 116. Defendants re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in 3 paragraphs 1 through 115, as if set forth fully herein. 4 117. Denied. 5 118. Denied. 6 119. Denied. 7 COUNT VI 8 120. Defendants re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in 9 paragraphs 1 through 119, as if set forth fully herein. 10 121. Denied. 11 122. Denied. 12 123. Denied. 13 124. Denied. 14 125. Denied. 15 126. Denied. 16 COUNT VII 17 127. Defendants re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in 18 paragraphs 1 through 126, as if set forth fully herein. 19 128. Denied. 20 129. Denied. 21 130. Denied. 22 131. Denied. 23 132. Denied. 24 133. Denied. 25 134. Defendants allege Paragraph 134 of the Third Amended Complaint 26 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. 27 28

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -9 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:681

1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 2 First Affirmative Defense: Estoppel and Laches 3 The purported claims alleged in the Third Amended Complaint are barred, 4 in whole or in part, because plaintiff, by its acts, omissions and delay, failed to 5 take action within a reasonable time. 6 Second Affirmative Defense: Waiver and Acquiescence 7 The purported claims alleged in the Third Amended Complaint are barred, 8 in whole or in part, because plaintiff, by its acts, omissions and delay, and those of 9 its agents, waived or acquiesced to any claims or causes of action against 10 defendants. 11 Third Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands 12 The purported claims alleged in the Third Amended Complaint are barred, 13 in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands, including without limitation, 14 plaintiff’s improper assertion of trademark rights. 15 Fourth Affirmative Defense: Failure to Mitigate Damages 16 The purported claims alleged in the Third Amended Complaint are barred, 17 in whole or in part, because plaintiff failed to mitigate their damages. 18 Fifth Affirmative Defense: Lack of Damages 19 The purported claims alleged in the Third Amended Complaint are barred, 20 in whole or in part, due to plaintiff’s lack of damages. 21 Sixth Affirmative Defense: Lack of Proximate Cause 22 The purported claims alleged in the Third Amended Complaint are barred, 23 in whole or in part, because defendants were not a proximate cause to plaintiff’s 24 damages, if any. 25 Seventh Affirmative Defense: Lack of Standing 26 The purported claims alleged in the Third Amended Complaint are barred, 27 in whole or in part, by plaintiff’s lack of standing. 28 \\

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -10 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:682

1 Eighth Affirmative Defense: Failure to Join Required Party 2 Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is barred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P., 3 Rule 19, for failure to join a required party, namely David Klein. 4 5 Ninth Affirmative Defense: Abandonment 6 Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is barred because, on information and 7 belief, plaintiff has abandoned the trademarks and trade dress at issue. 8 Reservation of Additional Defenses 9 Defendants reserve all affirmative defenses available under Rule 8(c) and 10 Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other defenses, at law or in 11 equity, that may be available now or may become available in the future based on 12 discovery or any other factual investigation in this case, or that may be asserted by 13 plaintiff. 14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 15 WHEREFORE, Defendants request entry of judgment in their favor and 16 against plaintiff as follows: 17 a. Denying all relief sought by plaintiff in the Third Amended 18 Complaint; 19 b. Recovery of all costs and attorneys’ fees; and, 20 c. Such other and relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. 21 22 Respectfully submitted, 23 MANDOUR & ASSOCIATES, APC 24 Date: June 12, 2020 25 /s/ Ben T. Lila 26 Ben T. Lila 27 Attorneys for Defendants, Sweets Indeed, LLC and Marie E. Dannettelle 28

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -11 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:683

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants hereby demand a trial by the jury on all claims herein and all 2 issues and claims so triable in this action. 3

4 Respectfully submitted, 5

6 MANDOUR & ASSOCIATES, APC Date: June 12, 2020 7 8 /s/ Ben T. Lila Ben T. Lila (SBN 246808) 9 Email: [email protected] 10 Attorneys for Defendants, Sweets Indeed, LLC and Marie E. Dannettelle 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -12 - Case 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR Document 36 Filed 06/12/20 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:684

1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 I hereby certify that on the below date, I filed the foregoing document via 4 the Court’s CM/ECF filing system, which will provide notice of the same on the 5 following:

6 Jodie Cheng 7 JWC Legal 8 445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 9 Telephone: (415) 293-8308 10 Email: [email protected]

11 12 Date: June 12, 2020 /s/ Ben T. Lila 13 Ben T. Lila 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00841-PA-AGR DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -13 -