Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 1 of 20 PageID 123
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
RESPONSIBLE ME, INC., CASE NO.: 6:04-cv-867-Orl-22DAB a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOREL JUVENILE GROUP, INC., a Massachusetts corporation; KB TOYS, Inc., a Delaware corporation; K-MART CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and WAL-MART STORES, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Defendants. ______/
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL WITH INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT
COMES NOW Plaintiff, RESPONSIBLE ME, INC. (“Plaintiff” or “RMI”) by
and through its undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) states as its
Third Amended Complaint, the following:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff RMI is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of
Florida and maintains its principal place of business at 632 East Amelia Street, Orlando,
Florida 32803.
2. Defendant DOREL JUVENILE GROUP, INC. (“DOREL”) is, upon
information and belief, a corporation formed under the laws of Massachusetts with its
principal place of business at 45 Dan Road, Canton, Massachusetts 02021. Upon Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 2 of 20 PageID 124
information and belief, DOREL does business and makes sales to retailers and other
entities in this federal judicial district and throughout the United States.
3. Defendant KB TOYS, INC. (“KB TOYS”) is, upon information and
belief, a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal
place of business at Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Upon information and belief, KB TOYS
purchases products subject to the patent referenced in this lawsuit from DOREL and/or
its said subsidiaries. Upon information and belief, KB TOYS does business and makes
sales to consumers in this federal judicial district and throughout the United States.
4. Defendant K-MART CORPORATION (“KMART”) is, upon information
and belief, a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal
place of business at Troy, Michigan. Upon information and belief, KMART purchases
products subject to the patent referenced in this lawsuit from DOREL and/or its said
subsidiaries. Upon information and belief, KMART does business and makes sales to
consumers in this federal judicial district and throughout the United States.
5. Defendant WAL-MART STORES, INC. (“WAL-MART”) is, upon
information and belief, a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware with
its principal place of business at Bentonville, Arkansas. Upon information and belief,
WAL-MART purchases products subject to the patent referenced in this lawsuit from
DOREL and/or its said subsidiaries. Upon information and belief, WAL-MART does
business and makes sales to consumers in this federal judicial district and throughout the
United States.
2 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 3 of 20 PageID 125
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, that is, Title
35 U.S. Code §271, et seq. and the Trademark laws of the United States, that is, the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114, et seq., and as such, this Court has jurisdiction over this
cause pursuant to Title 28 U.S. Code § 1338 in that this case involves an infringement of
a patent issued and trademark registered by the United States of America Patent and
Trademark Office. Moreover, all Defendants engage in a regular course of business in
the Middle District of Florida, thereby giving this Court personal jurisdiction over all
Defendants.
7. Venue is proper as to DOREL pursuant Title 28, U.S. Code § 1391(d).
8. Venue is also proper in this District as to all Defendants pursuant to Title
28, U.S. Code § 1400(b) in that, upon information and belief, all Defendants have sold,
caused to be sold, or offered for sale, products which infringe the Patent (as hereinafter
defined) and which all parties knew or should have known were to be distributed or sold
within this judicial district. Further, pursuant to Middle District Local Rule 1.02(c),
venue is appropriate in the Orlando Division of the Middle District of Florida because the
alleged acts giving rise to this claim occurred in one or more of the counties of which the
Orlando Division is comprised as set forth in Local Rule 1.02 (b)(3).
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
9. Upon information and belief said DOREL is the parent company to the
following subsidiaries in the United States: Cosco Management, Inc., Dorel Juvenile
Group, Inc., and Safety 1st, Inc., all of which sell and distribute DOREL products
3 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 4 of 20 PageID 126
throughout the United States.
10. Upon information and belief, DOREL has used or is using the following
agents and distributors to distribute its products: Burlington Coat Factory Direct
Corporation, JC Penney Corportion, Inc., KB Toys, Inc., K-Mart Corporation, Toys “R”
Us-Delaware, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and the Walt Disney Company.
11. On November 26, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,484,989 B1 (the
“Patent or the ‘989 Patent”), was duly issued to one Mente Connery, Orlando, Florida by
the United States Patent and Trademark Office for a highchair helper which can be
generally described as a tray extension device for baby highchair trays. The ‘989 Patent
was filed in 2000 and claims the benefit of priority to a previous patent and provisional
patent application that were both filed in 1998.
12. By assignment from said Connery to said RMI dated October 23, 2001,
said RMI currently holds all right, title and interest in the Patent.
13. At all times subsequent to October 23, 2001, said RMI has been and is
currently the owner of the Patent and all rights appertaining thereto.
14. Said Connery met with representatives of the Playskool Division of a
company known as Hasbro, Inc. (“Hasbro”) in 1998 after filing her provisional
application for patent referenced in ¶ 11 above concerning the possibility of entering into
a licensing agreement concerning the highchair helper, however, the parties did not reach
any agreement concerning same. Subsequent to Plaintiff’s discussions with
representatives of Hasbro concerning the possibility of licensing the highchair helper,
Hasbro’s Playskool Division was either purchased or otherwise acquired by DOREL
and/or its subsidiary Cosco and, attendant to that transaction and upon information and
4 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 5 of 20 PageID 127
belief, one or more individuals with whom Connery had discussed licensing the highchair
helper left the employ of Hasbro and became employed by DOREL and/or its subsidiary
Cosco.
15. In 2000, DOREL filed an application for patent directed to an accessory
tray for high chairs, which issued as U.S.P.N. 6,298,793 (“DOREL Patent”) in 2001. The
structure specified therein falls within the scope of RMI’s ‘989 Patent.
16. Thereafter, DOREL introduced a product into the marketplace known as
PARENT ASSIST, which corresponds to the structure of said DOREL patent and which
infringes said Patent of RMI.
COUNT I
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
(AS TO DOREL)
17. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and all of the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 1-16 of this Second Amended Complaint as though set forth fully at length
herein.
18. DOREL and/or its said subsidiaries set forth in ¶ 9 above and/or its said
distributors and agents set forth in ¶ 10 above, make, use, sell, and import the PARENT
ASSIST tray as part of its production and sale of various models of highchairs including,
but not limited to, the HIGHCHAIR MODEL 03-330 OPTIONS FIVE HIGHCHAIR,
CLEAN AND CONVENIENT HIGH CHAIR (MODEL 03-060), CLEAN AND
CONVENIENT HIGH CHAIR (DISNEY BABY MODEL 03-061), STAGES HIGH
CHAIR (MODEL 03-332), THE LITTLE DINER HIGH CHAIR (MODEL 03-345), and
DISNEY MAGICAL BEGININGS HIGH CHAIR.
5 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 6 of 20 PageID 128
19. The sales of highchair models furnished with the PARENT ASSIST tray
are facilitated or convoyed thereby.
20. DOREL and/or its said subsidiaries set forth in ¶ 9 above and/or agents
thereof set forth in ¶ 10 above have also made, sold, offered for sale, imported and
continue to so make and sell said PARENT ASSIST tray for ordering individually by the
public as an accessory to their highchair models.
21. DOREL and/or its said subsidiaries set forth in ¶ 9 above and/or agents
thereof set forth in ¶ 10 above have, through said acts, infringed Plaintiff’s rights of
manufacture and sale.
22. Prior to said infringement by DOREL and/or its said subsidiaries set forth
in ¶ 9 above and/or agents thereof set forth in ¶ 10 above, RMI existed as a viable
production and marketing entity for highchair products including a highchair accessory
known as the “Clip-Away Feeding Tray” the structure of which is embodied in the ‘989
Patent. Due to the Defendants’ infringement, RMI is now threatened with extinction.
23. In the absence of injunctive relief, Defendants will continue to violate the
Patent Laws of the United States, and to infringe and violate the claims of the ‘989 Patent
to the detriment and injury of the Plaintiff.
24. On information and belief DOREL and/or its agents and subsidiaries
proceeded with such infringing action subsequent to learning of RMI’s patent, therefore,
this case is exceptional within the meaning of Title 35, U.S.C. 285, by virtue of
Defendants’ continuing, willful, and knowing infringement of the Plaintiff’s ‘989 Patent.
25. All prerequisites and conditions precedent to suit have been satisfied or
have occurred.
6 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 7 of 20 PageID 129
26. By reason of the above-described acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered
great harm, including, but not limited to, loss of past and prospective profits on said
“Clip-Away Feeding Tray.”
27. As one consequence thereof, Plaintiff has retained the undersigned
attorneys and has agreed to pay them reasonable fees for their services.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
(a) Awarding the Plaintiff all economic compensatory damages
attributable to the infringement including all actual damages suffered by reason of
Defendant’s wrongful manufacture, importation, sale, and offer of sale of products
infringing upon the ‘989 Patent of Plaintiff and all profits of the Defendant derived
therefrom;
(b) Awarding Plaintiff three times the amount of damages pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 284;
(c) Issuing an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant and its
agents from any further infringement or violation of Plaintiff’s patent;
(d) Declaring this case to be an exceptional one and awarding the
Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in brining the action, under 35 U.S.C.
285.
(e) Awarding the Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on
all damages at the maximum allowable rate.
(f) Awarding the Plaintiff such other further relief as this Court may
deem appropriate.
7 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 8 of 20 PageID 130
COUNT II
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
(AS TO KB, TOYS, INC.)
28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and all of the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 1-27 of this Second Amended Complaint as though set forth fully at length
herein.
29. On information and belief, KB TOYS is a distributor for DOREL and/or
one or more of DOREL’S said agents/subsidiaries, of said PARENT ASSIST tray, this
including but not limited to KB TOYS Item No. 123674.
30. KB TOYS has thereby infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive right of sale under
the ‘989 Patent.
31. All prerequisites and conditions precedent to suit have been satisfied or
have occurred.
32. By reason of the above-described acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered
great harm, including, but not limited to, loss of past and prospective profits on said
“Clip-Away Feeding Tray.”
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
(a) Awarding the Plaintiff all economic compensatory damages
attributable to the infringement including all actual damages suffered by reason of
Defendant’s wrongful manufacture, importation, sale, and offer of sale of products
infringing upon the ‘989 Patent of Plaintiff and all profits of the Defendant derived
therefrom;
8 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 9 of 20 PageID 131
(b) Awarding Plaintiff three times the amount of damages pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 284;
(c) Issuing an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant and its
agents from any further infringement or violation of Plaintiff’s patent;
(d) Declaring this case to be an exceptional one and awarding the
Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in brining the action, under 35 U.S.C.
285.
(e) Awarding the Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on
all damages at the maximum allowable rate.
(f) Awarding the Plaintiff such other further relief as this Court may
deem appropriate.
COUNT III
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
(AS TO K-MART CORPORATION)
33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and all of the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 1-27 of this Second Amended Complaint as though set forth fully at length
herein.
34. On information and belief, KMART is a distributor for DOREL and/or
one or more of its said agents/subsidiaries of said PARENT ASSIST tray, this including
but not limited to its Kmart Code No. 143788-115.
35. KMART has thereby infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive right of sale under the
‘989 Patent.
36. All prerequisites and conditions precedent to suit have been satisfied or
9 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 10 of 20 PageID 132
have occurred.
37. By reason of the above-described acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered
great harm, including, but not limited to, loss of profits on said “Clip-Away Feeding
Tray.”
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
(a) Awarding the Plaintiff all economic compensatory damages
attributable to the infringement including all actual damages suffered by reason of
Defendant’s wrongful manufacture, importation, sale, and offer of sale of products
infringing upon the ‘989 Patent of Plaintiff and all profits of the Defendant derived
therefrom;
(b) Awarding Plaintiff three times the amount of damages pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 284;
(c) Issuing an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant and its
agents from any further infringement or violation of Plaintiff’s patent;
(d) Declaring this case to be an exceptional one and awarding the
Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in brining the action, under 35 U.S.C.
285.
(e) Awarding the Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on
all damages at the maximum allowable rate.
(f) Awarding the Plaintiff such other further relief as this Court may
deem appropriate.
10 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 11 of 20 PageID 133
COUNT IV
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
(AS TO WAL-MART STORES, INC.)
38. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and all of the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 1-27 of this Second Amended Complaint as though set forth fully at length
herein.
39. On information and belief, WAL-MART is a distributor for DOREL,
and/or one or more of its said agent/subsidiaries, of said PARENT ASSIST tray, this
including but not limited to WAL-MART’S Model No. 03-031-WAL.
40. WAL-MART has thereby infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive right of sale
under the ‘989 Patent.
41. All prerequisites and conditions precedent to suit have been satisfied or
have occurred.
42. By reason of the above-described acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered
great harm, including, but not limited to, loss of profits on said “Clip-Away Feeding
Tray.”
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
(a) Awarding the Plaintiff all economic compensatory damages
attributable to the infringement including all actual damages suffered by reason of
Defendant’s wrongful manufacture, importation, sale, and offer of sale of products
infringing upon the ‘989 Patent of Plaintiff and all profits of the Defendant derived
therefrom;
11 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 12 of 20 PageID 134
(b) Awarding Plaintiff three times the amount of damages pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 284;
(c) Issuing an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant and its
agents from any further infringement or violation of Plaintiff’s patent;
(d) Declaring this case to be an exceptional one and awarding the
Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in brining the action, under 35 U.S.C.
285.
(e) Awarding the Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on
all damages at the maximum allowable rate.
(f) Awarding the Plaintiff such other further relief as this Court may
deem appropriate.
COUNT V
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Violation of Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114
(AS TO DOREL)
43. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and all of the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 1-16 of this Second Amended Complaint as though set forth fully at length
herein.
44. In 2000, the corporation RESPONSIBLE ME, INC. (“RMI”), under the
creative control and direction of Mente Connery created and began using the name “Clip-
Away Feeding Tray”, to advertise and identify high chair accessories that were distributed
and offered for sale in interstate commerce and to distinguish such items from products or
services made, sold or advertised by others.
12 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 13 of 20 PageID 135
45. The name “Clip-Away Feeding Tray” in traditional script or stylized
lettering, and any combination thereof, constitutes a protectable trade name and
trademark under federal law.
46. RMI has continually used the trademark and trade name “Clip- Away
Feeding Tray” to identify the business for four (4) years.
47. The trademark and trade name “Clip-Away Feeding Tray” is inherently
distinctive or has achieved secondary meaning and said trademark is primarily
nonfunctional thereby rendering it worthy of the protection of the Lanham Act.
48. Plaintiff holds U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,607,405, issued on
August 13, 2002, for the “Clip-Away Feeding Tray” mark.
49. Defendant DOREL and/or its subsidiaries and agents, in connection with the
sale of highchairs and/or highchair accessories, have used and continue to use in interstate
commerce the trademarks and trade name “Flip Away Tray” or similar trademarks and trade
names which, in commercial advertising, promotion, and identification of the goods and
services, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, and qualities of RMI.
50. Defendant’s actions in adopting and using the trademark and trade name
“Flip Away Tray” were willful and wanton or with reckless disregard for the rights of
Plaintiff.
51. Said use has given rise to a likelihood of confusion within relevant
channels of commerce of the respective parties.
52. Plaintiff has thus been damaged as a result of Defendant’s said use of the
trademark and trade name “Flip Away Tray”, including but not limited to, loss or
impairment of business good will.
13 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 14 of 20 PageID 136
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
a. Enjoin by injunction all Defendant DOREL and its agents/subsidiaries
who have infringed, are infringing, or are otherwise likely to infringe
upon Plaintiff’s trademarks and trade name “Clip-Away Feeding Tray”,
by restraining their use of the same or any mark or trade name similar
thereto;
b. Enjoin by injunction all Defendant DOREL and its agents/subsidiaries
who have utilized, are currently utilizing, or are otherwise likely to
utilize any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of
fact, or false or misleading representation of fact with respect to any
aspect of the products or services at issue herein by restraining their use
of the same or any mark or trade name similar to “Clip-Away Feeding
Tray” on goods or services in the stream of interstate commerce, in any
commercial advertising, or in any other manner;
c. Award Plaintiff all actual damages suffered by reason of Defendant
DOREL and its agents/subsidiaries’ wrongful manufacture, use,
display, sale, false designation of origin, reverse passing or palming
off, and/or false advertising of Plaintiff’s trademarks and trade name
“Clip-Away Feeding Tray” and all products and services associated
therewith;
d. Award Plaintiff three times the amount found as actual damages
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);
14 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 15 of 20 PageID 137
e. Award Plaintiff all profits of Defendant DOREL and its
agents/subsidiaries derived from the wrongful manufacture, use,
display, sale, false designation of origin, and/or false advertising of
Plaintiff’s trademarks and trade name “Clip-Away Feeding Tray”;
f. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action;
g. Award Plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
1117(a);
h. Order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and
advertisements in the possession of Defendant DOREL and its
agents/subsidiaries bearing the word, term, name, symbol, device,
combination thereof, designation, description, or representation that is
the subject of this count, or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or
colorable imitation thereof, and all plates, molds, matrices, and all other
means of making same be delivered up and destroyed pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 1118;
i. Award Plaintiff all other relief that this Court may deem just and
proper including pre- and post-judgment interest.
COUNT VI
COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
(AS TO DOREL)
53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and all of the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1-16 and 43-52 of this Second Amended Complaint as though set forth fully at
length herein.
15 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 16 of 20 PageID 138
54. Defendant DOREL and its agents/subsidiaries’ unauthorized use of the
name and mark “Flip Away Tray” unjustly enriches them at the expense of Plaintiff’s
reputation and goodwill.
55. Unless Defendant DOREL and its agents/subsidiaries’ unauthorized use is
restrained, Defendant will continue to use the name and mark “Flip Away Tray” thereby
causing irreparable injury to Plaintiff and the public.
56. Defendant’s acts constitute unfair competition under the common law of
Florida.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
a. Enjoin by injunction Defendant DOREL and its agents/subsidiaries that
have unfairly competed with Plaintiff by the unauthorized use of
Plaintiff’s trademarks and trade name “Flip Away Tray”, and by
restraining the use of the same or any mark, trade name, or form of
advertisement similar thereto;
b. Award Plaintiff all damages suffered by reason of Defendant DOREL
and its agents/subsidiaries’ wrongful manufacture, use, display, sale or
other use of Plaintiff’s trademarks and trade name “Clip-Away Feeding
Tray”;
c. Award Plaintiff all profits of Defendant DOREL and its
agents/subsidiaries derived from the wrongful manufacture, use,
display, sale or other use of Plaintiff’s trademarks and trade name
“Clip-Away Feeding Tray”;
d. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action;
16 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 17 of 20 PageID 139
e. Award Plaintiff all other relief that this Court may deem just and
proper including pre- and post-judgment interest
COUNT VII
UNFAIR PRACTICES IN IMPORT TRADE
Violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
57. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and all of the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 1-52 of this Second Amended Complaint as though set forth fully at length
herein.
58. On information and belief, the Defendants imported high chairs furnished
with the PARENT ASSIST tray into the United States.
59. On information and belief, the Defendants offered for sale the high chairs
furnished with the PARENT ASSIST tray after importation.
60. On information and belief, Defendants offered for sale after importation
the PARENT ASSIST tray which infringes RMI’s valid and enforceable ‘989 Patent.
61. All such trays recited in ¶ 18 infringed Plaintiff’s patent and trademark as
set forth above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
(a) Declare a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (d) and direct the articles
concerned that were imported by the Defendants to be excluded from
entry into United States.
(b) Issue a cease and desist order to Defendants not to violate 19
U.S.C. § 1337 (f).
17 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 18 of 20 PageID 140
COUNT VIII
Violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
62. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and all of the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 1-16 of this Second Amended Complaint as though set forth fully at length
herein.
63. Defendants have engaged in unfair methods of competition,
unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct
of a trade or commerce in violation of Sections 501.204(1) and 501.203(3)(c), Florida
Statutes by selling a baby highchair accessory which unfairly competes with Plaintiff’s
baby highchair accessory thereby deceiving consumers concerning same.
64. Defendants’ unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or
practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce
described hereinabove is likely to mislead and deceive the public as to the source,
sponsorship, approval, or certification of the goods at issue or as to Defendants’
affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiffs.
65. Plaintiff has been aggrieved by Defendants’ unfair methods of
competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
the conduct of trade or commerce as described hereinabove.
66. Defendants’ actions have been and continue to be intentional, willful,
wanton or with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and is detrimental to consumers.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
18 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 19 of 20 PageID 141
a. Pursuant to Section 501.211(1), Florida Statutes, issue a declaratory
judgment that Defendants’ acts and practices described hereinabove
violates the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(“FDUTPA”) and enjoin by injunction all Defendants who have
violated, are violating, or are otherwise likely to violate FDUTPA;
b. Pursuant to Section 501.211(2), Florida Statutes, award Plaintiff
actual damages, plus attorney’s fees and court costs as provided in
Section 501.2105, Florida Statutes;
c. Award Plaintiff punitive damages;
d. Award Plaintiff all other relief that this Court may deem just and
proper including pre- and post-judgment interest.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
67. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right.
Respectfully submitted,
Trial Counsel for Plaintiff:
TRAVIS R. HOLLIFIELD, P.A Travis R. Hollifield, Esq. Florida Bar No. 0094420 Hollifield Legal Centre 147 E. Lyman Avenue, Suite C Winter Park, Florida 32789 (407) 599-9590/telephone (407) 599-9591/facsimile [email protected]
BY: \s\ Travis H. Hollifield TRAVIS H. HOLLIFIELD, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 0094420
19 Case 6:04-cv-00867-ACC-DAB Document 25 Filed 12/30/04 Page 20 of 20 PageID 142
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff:
SILVERMAN SANTUCCI, LLP Michael I. Santucci, Esq. 500 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 (954) 351-7474/telephone (954) 351-7475/facsimile [email protected]
and
BRIAN S. STEINBERGER, P.A. Brian S. Steinberger, Esq. 101 Brevard Avenue Cocoa, Florida 33922 (321) 633-5080/telephone (321) 633-9322/facsimile [email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished this 30th day of December, 2004 via facsimile and First Class Mail to Richard J.
Hoskins, Esq., SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, 6600 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606-4763,
fax: 312-258-5600.
BY: \s\ Travis H. Hollifield TRAVIS H. HOLLIFIELD, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 0094420
20