(SBN 251204) 2 [email protected] 3 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90025 4 Telephone: 310-356-4668 Facsimile: 310-388-1232, 5 Jason M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:20-cv-10220 Document 1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:1 1 EPSTEIN DRANGEL LLP Peter J. Farnese (SBN 251204) 2 [email protected] 3 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90025 4 Telephone: 310-356-4668 Facsimile: 310-388-1232, 5 Jason M. Drangel, Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming 6 [email protected] 7 Ashly E. Sands, Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming [email protected] 8 William C. Wright, Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming [email protected] 9 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2520 10 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: 212-292-5390 11 Facsimile: 212-292-5391 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Caryn Mandabach Productions Limited 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 CARYN MANDABACH PRODUCTIONS CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-10220 LIMITED, 16 COMPLAINT FOR: 17 Plaintiff, (1) FEDERAL UNFAIR 18 v. COMPETITION, PASSING OFF, FALSE ADVERTISING AND 19 SADLERS BREWHOUSE LIMITED; FALSE DESIGNATION OF 20 HALEWOOD WINES & SPIRITS, INC.; ORIGIN; and THE WINEBOW GROUP, LLC, 21 (2) UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER Defendants. CALIFORNIA’S BUSINESS AND 22 PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200; 23 (3) FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER 24 CALIFORNIA’S BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17500; 25 AND 26 (4) CANCELLATION OF U.S. TRADEMARK REGISTRATION 27 NO. 5,573,011 28 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-10220 Document 1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:2 1 Caryn Mandabach Productions Limited (hereinafter, “Plaintiff” or “CMPL”), by 2 and through its undersigned counsel, files this Original Complaint against Defendants 3 Sadlers Brewhouse Limited (hereinafter “Sadlers”), Halewood Wines & Spirits, Inc. 4 (hereinafter, “Halewood”) and The Winebow Group, LLC (hereinafter, “Winebow”) 5 (Defendant Sadlers, Defendant Halewood and Defendant Winebow are hereinafter 6 collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and respectfully alleges as follows: 7 NATURE OF THE ACTION 8 1. This case involves claims for unfair competition in violation of Section 9 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); and related 10 state and common law claims, arising out of Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s 11 PEAKY BLINDERS Marks (as defined infra), including, without limitation, by 12 manufacturing, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, displaying, offering for 13 sale, and/or selling products that infringe one or more of the PEAKY BLINDERS 14 Marks (as defined infra) (collectively, the “Infringing Products”) (the “Action”). 15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16 2. This Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted 17 in this Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 1121, as 18 claims that arise under the Lanham Act. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 20 3. Personal jurisdiction exists over Defendants because, upon information and 21 belief, Defendants have regularly conducted business in California and in this judicial 22 district, and continue to conduct business in California and in this judicial district; 23 and/or are causing tortious injury by an act in California; and/or are causing tortious 24 injury in California by an act outside California where they regularly do and/or solicit 25 business; and/or engage in other systematic courses of conduct and/or derive substantial 26 revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered, in California; and/or 27 otherwise avail themselves of the privileges and protections of the laws of the State of 28 -1- COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-10220 Document 1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:3 1 California, such that this Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over Defendants does not 2 offend traditional notions of fair play and due process. 3 4. Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with this State, through at 4 least the importation, marketing, distribution, offer, supply, and/or sale of Infringing 5 Products within the State of California. Upon information and belief Halewood and 6 Winebow are offering for sale and/or selling the Infringing Products in California. 7 5. Alternatively, upon information and belief, Sadlers is not subject to 8 jurisdiction in any state’s court of general jurisdiction and the claims outlined herein 9 primarily arise under federal law. In addition to the actions complained of herein, inter 10 alia, Sadlers has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole and personal 11 jurisdiction will be established over Sadlers upon service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 4(k)(2): 13 a. Sadlers arranged for the Infringing Products to be imported, distributed, 14 offered, supplied and/or sold in the United States through, inter alia, U.S. 15 importers, distributors, retailers and/or the Internet, including but not 16 limited to Halewood and Winebow. 17 6. Venue for this action is proper in the United States District Court for the 18 Central District of California, inter alia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because, upon 19 information and belief, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 20 asserted counts occurred in this judicial district, and harm to Plaintiff has occurred in 21 this district. Alternatively, as noted supra, this Court has personal jurisdiction over 22 Defendants. 23 THE PARTIES 24 7. Plaintiff is a private limited company, organized and existing under the 25 laws of the United Kingdom with an address of 39a Berwick Street, London, England, 26 W1F 8RU. 27 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sadlers is a private limited 28 company, organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom and located and -2- COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-10220 Document 1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:4 1 doing business at 15-17 Church Street, Stourbridge, West Midlands, United Kingdom 2 DY8 1LU. 3 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Halewood is a corporation, 4 organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida and is located and doing 5 business at 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 500, Miami, Florida 33131. 6 10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Winebow is a limited liability 7 company, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia and is located 8 and doing business at 4800 Cox Road, Suite 300, Glen Allen, VA, 23060. 9 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10 Plaintiff and its Award-Winning PEAKY BLINDERS SHOW and PEAKY 11 BLINDERS Marks 12 11. Caryn Mandabach is a multi-award-winning television producer whose 13 ground-breaking hits include NURSE JACKIE, ROSEANNE, THIRD ROCK FROM 14 THE SUN and THAT 70S SHOW. 15 12. In 2005, Caryn Mandabach founded CMPL, an internationally renowned 16 production company. 17 13. CMPL produces the multi-award-winning television series, PEAKY 18 BLINDERS, which premiered in the United Kingdom on BBC One in September 2013, 19 and on Netflix in the United States in September 2014 (the “PEAKY BLINDERS 20 SHOW”). 21 14. The PEAKY BLINDERS SHOW is a crime drama primarily set in 22 Birmingham, England in the aftermath of World War I, beginning in 1919. The PEAKY 23 BLINDERS SHOW follows the exploits of the fictional Shelby family, who run the 24 powerful PEAKY BLINDERS gang which is loosely based on a little-known historical 25 gang in Birmingham, UK that was in operation from about the 1890s to before World 26 War I and was known as “the Peaky Blinders” (the “Historical Gang”). 27 15. The gang featured in the PEAKY BLINDERS SHOW differs from the 28 Historical Gang in numerous respects, including, inter alia, that the PEAKY -3- COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-10220 Document 1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:5 1 BLINDERS SHOW is set from 1919 onwards, after World War I, while the Historical 2 Gang was in operation from around 1890 through 1910, before World War I; the gang 3 depicted in the PEAKY BLINDERS SHOW uses safety razor blades tucked into the 4 brim of their flat caps as weapons, and it is debatable whether this was a tactic of the 5 Historical Gang, as such razors were considered luxury items only available toward the 6 end of the Historical Gang’s operation; and while the gang run by the Shelby family in 7 the PEAKY BLINDERS SHOW evolves into a highly organized operation with legal 8 business aims, the Historical Gang was nothing more than common street criminals 9 committing low-level offenses. 10 16. In the PEAKY BLINDERS SHOW, the fictional Shelby family owns a 11 business called “SHELBY COMPANY LIMITED”, which initially started as a race 12 betting company. Throughout the five series, the business of the SHELBY COMPANY 13 LIMITED was expanded to several different areas – for example, the business 14 purchased a pub and began selling spirits, such as whiskey and gin. During the episodes, 15 extensive reference was made to the business exploits of the Shelby family and the 16 PEAKY BLINDERS gang, including its ownership of a pub and its sale of alcohol. 17 Members of the PEAKY BLINDERS gang often meet at a pub called THE 18 GARRISON, and the pub plays a central role in the series, as it serves as a common 19 meeting place for the main characters. 20 17. Five (5) series of the PEAKY BLINDERS SHOW have now been aired on 21 the BBC in the UK and Netflix in the U.S. between 2013 and 2019, and a sixth series 22 has been commissioned as of the date of filing this Action. 23 18. The PEAKY BLINDERS SHOW has become wildly successful and 24 popular worldwide, and particularly in the United States.