Ketel One Trade Dress Complaint

Brendan J.
ORourke
Victoria L. Loughery
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Eleven Times Square
New York, New York 10036
Tel: 212.969.3000
Fax: 212.969.3249
Email: borourke@proskauer.com
Email: vloughery@proskauer.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KETEL ONE WORLDWIDE B.V.
DOUBLE EAGLE BRANDS N.V., and
DOUBLE EAGLE BRANDS B.V.
Plaintiffs,
v.
ARCADIA IMPORTS, LLC,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 13-CV-9026 (WHP)

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Ketel One Worldwide B.V., Double Eagle Brands N.V., and Double Eagle
Brands B.V. (collectively, Plaintiffs), by and through their attorneys, hereby allege as follows
for their Complaint against Defendant Arcadia Imports, LLC (Defendant):
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action to recover for Defendants willful acts of trademark and trade
dress infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. 1051
et seq. (the Lanham Act); trademark dilution and injury to business reputation under N.Y. GEN.
BUS. LAW 360-1; unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW 349;
Case 1:13-cv-09026-WHP Document 21 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 22
2

common law trademark infringement and unfair competition; and trademark infringement and
dilution under the laws of all states in which Defendants product is sold.
2. This action arises from Defendants distribution, advertising, promotion, and sale
of Defendants DUTCHCRAFT vodka. As explained further herein, the DUTCHCRAFT trade
dress infringes and dilutes the federally registered trademarks and trade dress used in connection
with the distribution, advertising, promotion and sale of the highly successful and famous
KETEL ONE vodka and flavored vodka (the KETEL ONE Trade Dress). The overall look
and feel of the trade dress used in connection with the distribution, advertising, promotion, and
sale of DUTCHCRAFT vodka is substantially similar to the KETEL ONE Trade Dress, and is
likely to confuse customers as to the source or affiliation of DUTCHCRAFT vodka and dilute
the distinctive quality of the KETEL ONE Trade Dress.
3. Defendants unlawful conduct has confused and will continue to confuse
consumers into believing they are purchasing KETEL ONE vodka, or a vodka that is otherwise
affiliated with or sponsored by Plaintiffs, when, in fact, that is not the case. Defendants use of
the strikingly similar trade dress has diluted and will continue to dilute the value of the
distinctive KETEL ONE Trade Dress, and to decrease the ability of the KETEL ONE Trade
Dress to identify and distinguish Plaintiffs products from those of their competitors.
4. Defendants activities are irreparably injuring Plaintiffs and will continue to do so
unless halted by this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief, statutory,
compensatory, and punitive damages, Defendants profits, Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees
and expenses, and corrective advertising concerning Defendants infringing DUTCHCRAFT
trade dress.
3

PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Ketel One Worldwide B.V. (KOW) is a private limited liability
company organized under the laws of the Netherlands, with offices in the Netherlands.
6. Plaintiff Double Eagle Brands N.V. (Double Eagle Brands) is a limited liability
company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands Antilles and, as of October 10, 2010,
organized under the laws of Curacao with a corporate seat at Willemstad, Curacao and having its
office at Kaya W.F.G. (Jombi) Mensing 32, Willemstad, Curacao.
7. Plaintiff Double Eagle Brands B.V. (DEB) is a private limited liability
company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands.
8. On information and belief, Defendant is a Connecticut limited liability company
with offices at 93 West Main Street, Plainville, Connecticut 06062.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under Section 39
of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1121, and 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338. This Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs related state and common law claims pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1338 and 1367.
10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant regularly
conducts business in the State of New York, and because Defendant sells its infringing
DUTCHCRAFT product to consumers in the State of New York and in this judicial district.
Jurisdiction is also proper because Defendant has committed tortious acts in the State of New
York and in this judicial district and Plaintiffs claims arise out of such acts, and/or because
Defendant has otherwise made or established contacts in the State of New York and in this
judicial district sufficient to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
4

11. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because
defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district and because a substantial part
of the events giving rise to the claims in this action occurred in this judicial district.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs and KETEL ONE Vodka and Flavored Vodka
12. The Nolet Distillery in the Netherlands has been producing high-quality spirits for
over three hundred years. Inspired by over three hundred years of Nolet family distilling
expertise, KETEL ONE vodka is a super-premium vodka made from 100% wheat, and is
produced by combining modern column-distilling techniques with the use of old-world small-
batch copper pot stills.
13. Prior to December 31, 2013, Plaintiff Double Eagle Brands was the owner of all
intellectual property associated with the KETEL ONE brand, including without limitation the
KETEL ONE Trade Dress. Plaintiff KOW exclusively licensed the KETEL ONE intellectual
property, including the KETEL ONE Trade Dress, from Double Eagle Brands.
14. On December 31, 2013, through an asset transfer from Double Eagle Brands to
DEB, Plaintiff DEB became the owner of all intellectual property associated with the KETEL
ONE brand, including without limitation the KETEL ONE Trade Dress, and the licensing
arrangement with Plaintiff KOW. Plaintiff KOW continues to be the exclusive licensee of the
KETEL ONE intellectual property, including the KETEL ONE Trade Dress.
15. Plaintiff KOW is responsible for the marketing, promotion, importation, sales and
distribution of KETEL ONE vodka and flavored vodka in the United States and throughout the
world.
16. KETEL ONE vodka was launched in the United States in 1983. KETEL ONE
CITROEN flavored vodka was launched in the United States in 2000 and KETEL ONE
5

ORANJE flavored vodka was launched in the United States in 2010. All three products have
been sold continuously in the United States since their launches.
The KETEL ONE Trade Dress
17. Plaintiff KOW sells KETEL ONE vodka in an untinted glass bottle with a black
cap and a long neck wrapped in a black capsule. Running the length of the bottle is the famous
and inherently distinctive KETEL ONE label. This label is triple-bordered with silver, black and
gold lines. At the top of the label is a centered black square containing a hand-drawn, stippled
and cross-hatched black-and-white sketch of a man shoveling coal into a large still.
18. In the middle of the label the words Ketel One are printed in a proprietary black
font between horizontal lines. The word vodka appears in smaller text just underneath the
words Ketel One. At the bottom center of the label is a circular crest. Images of the 750ml
and 1.75L KETEL ONE bottles depicting the KETEL ONE Trade Dress are pictured below (full
sized copies are attached hereto as Exhibit A). The KETEL ONE Trade Dress has not changed
significantly since its first use in 1983.

6

Ketel One 750ml Bottle Ketel One 1.75L Bottle

19. DEB is the owner of numerous trademark registrations throughout the world and
in the United States comprising, consisting of, and incorporating the KETEL ONE Trade Dress,
including incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 1,357,081 as used in connection with vodka and U.S. Reg.
No. 3,798,231 (the KETEL ONE Vodka Marks) as used in connection with alcoholic
beverages except beer. True and correct copies of the aforementioned federal registrations are
attached hereto as Exhibits B and C.
20. DEB also owns federal trademark registrations associated with KETEL ONE
CITROEN trade dress, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,537,785; 3,369,154; and 3,675,874, and with
KETEL ONE ORANJE trade dress, including U.S. Reg. No. 4,072,827 (collectively, the
KETEL ONE Flavored Vodka Marks and, together with the KETEL ONE Vodka Marks, the
KETEL ONE Marks).
7

21. The labels of the flavored vodkas differ from the core KETEL ONE label
primarily in two respects: (1) the flavored varieties have a colored sash (yellow on the KETEL
ONE CITROEN label; orange on the KETEL ONE ORANJE label) that runs diagonally from the
bottom left of the label to the middle-right side of the label; and (2) the color of the square that
encases the letter K in the KETEL ONE logo matches the color of the aforementioned label
sash. The KETEL ONE ORANJE label also differs from the core KETEL ONE label, in that
one of the three lines bordering the label is orange. Otherwise, the labeling of the CITROEN and
the ORANJE flavored vodkas is substantially similar to the core KETEL ONE product. Images
of the KETEL ONE CITROEN and ORANJE bottles are pictured below.
Ketel One Citroen 750ml Bottle Ketel One Citroen 1.75L Bottle

8

Ketel One Oranje 750ml Bottle Ketel One Oranje 1.75L Bottle

22. KETEL ONE vodka and flavored vodka is sold throughout the United States in a
wide variety of trade channels, including bars, clubs, lounges, restaurants, liquor stores and other
retail locations, as well as at concerts, sporting events, and other entertainment venues.
23. Since KETEL ONE vodka was introduced to the market in 1983, the vodka has
enjoyed great popularity, with the net sales value of the product exceeding $200 million annually
in the United States for the last several years.
24. Plaintiffs exercise great care, skill, and diligence in connection with their KETEL
ONE vodka and flavored vodka and maintain exacting standards of the highest quality. As a
result, KETEL ONE vodka has received numerous awards and honors in the United States,
including being voted the Best Imported Vodka by the 2001/2002 Winter Issue of the Quarterly
Review of Wines; being voted Quality Institute Internationals #1 Premium Imported Vodka
(2002); receiving the Adams Growth Brands Fast Track Brand Award (2000, 2002 and 2003);
9

achieving a Double Gold Award for both KETEL ONE vodka and KETEL ONE CITROEN
flavored vodka at the 2003 San Francisco World Spirits Competition; receiving Impact
Magazines Blue Chip Brand Award (2003 and 2004); being voted the #1 Best All-Around
Vodka by Cargo Magazine (2004); being voted Best Vodka by Black Enterprise Magazine
(2007); winning the Impact Magazines Hot Brand Award twelve years in a row (1996-2007);
and receiving the Gold Medal at the 2008 San Francisco World Spirits Competition.
25. Plaintiffs have extensively advertised, distributed and promoted KETEL ONE
vodka in various national media including print, radio, digital, out of home, and television, as
well as through point of sale advertising, in-bar marketing, experiential events, sponsorships,
public relations and promotional events. Since 2010, Plaintiffs have spent more than $35 million
a year on advertising, marketing and promotional efforts for the KETEL ONE brand in the
United States.
26. Plaintiffs use of the KETEL ONE Trade Dress is subject to various quality
control efforts to ensure such use is consistent with brand guidelines.
27. The overwhelming majority of KETEL ONE advertisements prominently feature
the KETEL ONE Trade Dress. For instance, the KETEL ONE website (www.ketelone.com)
features a close-up animation of the label on its home page, and an entire page of the website is
devoted to depicting and explaining the elements of the KETEL ONE Trade Dress (see
http://www.ketelone.com/story/the-bottle). Many of Plaintiffs out of home billboards also
highlight the KETEL ONE Trade Dress, as do KETEL ONE television commercials, print ads
and Internet advertisements.
28. KETEL ONE vodka and flavored vodka is prominently featured on the Internet
and in social media, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. The KETEL ONE
10

Facebook page has received over eight hundred and fifty-seven thousand likes; the KETEL
ONE Instagram feed has garnered more than four thousand followers; and the KETEL ONE
Facebook page and Instagram feed both prominently feature images of the KETEL ONE Trade
Dress.
29. Plaintiffs have also promoted the KETEL ONE Trade Dress through high-profile
sponsorships. From 2005 to 2012, the KETEL ONE brand has been an official sponsor of the
PGA Tour, and has launched KETEL ONE CLUB, a KETEL ONE-branded cocktail lounge
featured at key golf tournaments. Since 2009, the KETEL ONE brand has been an official
sponsor of the New York Yankees, and maintains the KETEL ONE LOUNGE, a KETEL ONE-
branded cocktail lounge at Yankee Stadium. Both the KETEL ONE CLUB and KETEL ONE
LOUNGE prominently feature the KETEL ONE Trade Dress. For the last several years, from
2011 to 2013, the KETEL ONE brand has also been a sponsor of the GLAAD Media Awards.
Also, since 2013, the KETEL ONE brand has been an official sponsor of the Los Angeles
Dodgers.
30. Aside from traditional advertising and promotional efforts, the KETEL ONE
brand has been the subject of extensive unsolicited media attention in various online and print
publications, including DrinkSpirits.com; Foodpairing.com; Wonderland Magazine; The Latin
Post; Wine Spectator and New York Times, among many others.
31. The KETEL ONE Trade Dress is inherently distinctive and has acquired
distinctiveness. Through Plaintiffs extensive and exclusive use, and advertising and
promotional efforts and, as a direct result of the considerable time, effort and money Plaintiffs
have expended on the advertising, promotion and sale of KETEL ONE vodka and flavored
vodka in the United States, the KETEL ONE Trade Dress has become well-known, distinctive
11

and famous. The KETEL ONE Trade Dress is widely recognized and relied upon by consumers
to identify Plaintiffs products, and to distinguish them from the goods and services of others.
Defendants Unauthorized, Infringing, and Dilutive Activities
32. Recently, and long after the distinctive KETEL ONE Trade Dress became
famous, Defendant began using the DUTCHCRAFT trade dress in connection with the
marketing and sale of its vodka.
33. The DUTCHCRAFT trade dress is substantially and confusingly similar to the
KETEL ONE Trade Dress. Like KETEL ONE vodka, DUTCHCRAFT vodka is sold in a clear
bottle with a black cap and capsule, and a white rectangular front label. Like the KETEL ONE
label, the DUTCHCRAFT label is bordered with a thinner black line nested inside a thicker
silver line. Also like the KETEL ONE label, the DUTCHCRAFT label contains a centered black
square containing a hand-drawn, stippled and cross-hatched black-and-white graphic in this
case, a drawing of a windmill, which is not only evocative of Holland (where KETEL ONE
vodka is produced), but of the Nolet Distillery itself: the Nolet Distillery is home to the 'De
Nolet' windmill, which generates electricity for the distillery and is the tallest windmill of its
type in the world. Further, and as with the KETEL ONE Trade Dress, the product name is
printed in a black serif font bordered by horizontal stripes. Moreover, the DUTCHCRAFT trade
dress has a circular graphic at the bottom center of the label, similar to the circle encompassing
the crest at the bottom center of the KETEL ONE label. (The gold sticker that appears on at least
some bottles is also evocative of the gold crest that appears on the KETEL ONE bottle.) Images
of the DUTCHCRAFT trade dress as it appears on the 750ml and 1.75L DUTCHCRAFT bottles
appear below, and copies are attached hereto as Exhibit D.

12

Dutchcraft 750ml Bottle Dutchcraft 1.75L Bottle

34. The KETEL ONE Trade Dress became well-known, famous and distinctive long
before Defendant entered the market with its DUTCHCRAFT product, and Plaintiffs have not
authorized or consented to Defendants use of the KETEL ONE Trade Dress, or any other
trademark or trade dress. Nor do Plaintiffs have any control over the nature, quality or pricing of
the goods being sold by Defendant using its confusingly similar trade dress.
35. Defendant competes directly with Plaintiffs in the vodka beverage market, and
uses many of the same channels of trade to sells its DUTCHCRAFT product, including liquor
stores, restaurants, and other locations throughout New York (including within this judicial
district), Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Indeed, in many cases the parties
respective products are sold in exactly the same stores, and can be found side-by-side on store
shelves.
13

36. Defendant also uses similar advertising and media channels to market its product,
including the Internet, social media, sponsorships, promotional events, posters, and point-of-sale
advertisements.
37. The strikingly similar design elements of Defendants DUTCHCRAFT product
are likely to confuse and mislead consumers. On information and belief, Defendant willfully,
intentionally, maliciously, and purposefully, or in reckless disregard of or with callous
indifference to Plaintiffs rights, adopted and used its DUTCHCRAFT trade dress in a deliberate
attempt to trade off the fame and goodwill associated with the KETEL ONE brand.
38. Defendants activities have caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to
the goodwill symbolized by the KETEL ONE Trade Dress. Defendants activities have created
and, unless enjoined, will continue to create a substantial likelihood of confusion, including
initial interest confusion, as to the origin, sponsorship, approval, and quality of the products and
services that Plaintiffs provide in connection with their KETEL ONE Trade Dress, and have
infringed Plaintiffs rights in the KETEL ONE Trade Dress.
39. Unless enjoined, Defendants actions also are likely to dilute the substantial
goodwill and reputation for quality associated with Plaintiffs KETEL ONE Trade Dress by
impairing the distinctiveness of the KETEL ONE brand.
COUNT I
(Trademark Infringement Lanham Act 32, 15 U.S.C. 1114)
40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-37 above
with the same force and effect as if set forth fully herein.
41. Plaintiffs are the owner and exclusive licensee of numerous trademark
registrations throughout the world and in the United States comprising, consisting of, and
incorporating the KETEL ONE Trade Dress, including the KETEL ONE Marks.
14

42. Through Plaintiffs extensive and exclusive use and promotion of the distinctive
KETEL ONE Trade Dress, including the KETEL ONE Marks, has earned widespread
recognition in the minds of the relevant consuming public.
43. Upon information and belief, Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of
Plaintiffs KETEL ONE Trade Dress prior to the entry of DUTCHCRAFT into the market.
Defendants use of its confusingly similar DUTCHCRAFT trade dress is unauthorized and
infringes one or more of the KETEL ONE Marks used by Plaintiffs in connection with KETEL
ONE.
44. Plaintiffs use of the KETEL ONE Marks in the United States predates any use by
Defendant.
45. Defendants use of the DUTCHCRAFT trade dress is likely to cause confusion,
mistake or deception among consumers or potential consumers as to the source, origin,
sponsorship or approval of DUTCHCRAFT and/or as to DUTCHCRAFTs affiliation,
connection, or association with Plaintiffs and/or the KETEL ONE brand.
46. Defendants actions are likely to cause consumers and the public to mistakenly
believe that Plaintiffs have manufactured, sponsored, authorized, or licensed Defendants
products for sale and/or that Defendants products are being distributed by a distributor
authorized by Plaintiffs, and are likely to damage the reputation and goodwill previously
established by Plaintiffs in authorized products bearing the KETEL ONE Trade Dress.
47. The acts of Defendant described above constitute infringement of a federally-
registered mark in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114.
15

48. Upon information and belief, Defendants activities as described above have been
willful, wanton, and in deliberate disregard of Plaintiffs trademark rights, and for the purpose of
intentionally misappropriating and capitalizing on Plaintiffs goodwill.
49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have
suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount that is yet to be determined, but will
be established at trial.
COUNT II
(Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin
Lanham Act 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
51. The acts of Defendant described above constitute the use in commerce of unfair
competition, false designation of origin and/or false or misleading representations of fact in
violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
52. Defendants use of the DUTCHCRAFT trade dress, including all of its design
features similar to the KETEL ONE Trade Dress, is likely to cause confusion, mistake or
deception among consumers or potential consumers as to the affiliation, connection or
association of DUTCHCRAFT vodka with KETEL ONE vodka, or as to the source, origin,
sponsorship or approval of DUTCHCRAFT by Plaintiffs.
53. Upon information and belief, Defendants activities as described above have been
willful, wanton, and in deliberate disregard of Plaintiffs trademark rights, and for the purpose of
intentionally misappropriating and capitalizing on Plaintiffs goodwill.
16

COUNT III
(Trademark Dilution Lanham Act 43(c), 15 U.S.C. 1125(c))
56. The KETEL ONE Trade Dress is widely recognized by the general public and has
acquired fame throughout the United States, entitling it to protection from dilution under federal
law.
57. The KETEL ONE Trade Dress is famous, and was famous long before Defendant
began using the DUTCHCRAFT trade dress.
58. Defendants use of the DUTCHCRAFT trade dress on its vodka product is
without consent or authorization from Plaintiffs, and is likely to dilute and the distinctive quality
of the KETEL ONE Trade Dress, to decrease the capacity of such trade dress to distinguish
Plaintiffs products and services, and to cause harm to Plaintiffs goodwill and business
reputation.
59. Defendants actions as described herein constitute trademark dilution in violation
of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c).
60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful acts, Plaintiffs have
suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount that is not presently ascertainable but
will be established at trial. Defendants wrongful acts described herein were committed
willfully, with full knowledge of Plaintiffs rights and with the intention of deceiving and
misleading the public, and are causing harm to Plaintiffs.

17

COUNT IV
(Deceptive Trade Practices -- N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW 349)
62. Defendant has been and is currently engaged in deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of a business, trade, or commerce in violation of N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW 349.
63. The public is likely to be damaged as a result of Defendants deceptive trade acts
or practices.
64. Defendants conduct is causing immediate and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and
its goodwill and reputation, and will continue to damage Plaintiffs and deceive the public unless
enjoined by this court.
65. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and are entitled to injunctive relief.
66. Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover Defendants trebled profits, Plaintiffs
costs, and Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW 349.
COUNT V
(Trademark Dilution and Injury To Business
Reputation -- N.Y.GEN. BUS. LAW 360-1)
68. Plaintiffs have extensively and continuously promoted and used the KETEL ONE
Trade Dress in the United States, and this mark has become distinctive and a well-known symbol
of Plaintiffs products.
69. Defendants unauthorized imitation of Plaintiffs KETEL ONE Trade Dress is
likely to injure Plaintiffs business reputation, and dilutes and is likely to dilute the distinctive
quality of Plaintiffs KETEL ONE brand by eroding the publics exclusive identification of the
18

KETEL ONE Trade Dress with Plaintiffs and lessening the capacity of the mark to identify and
distinguish Plaintiffs goods.
70. Defendants actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to
trade on the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs KETEL ONE brand.
71. Defendant is causing and will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiffs
goodwill and business reputation in violation of N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW 360-1, and Plaintiffs
are entitled to injunctive relief.
COUNT VI
(Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition)
73. Defendant is falsely representing that its vodka designated with the
DUTCHCRAFT trade dress emanates from or has been approved by Plaintiffs while placing
beyond Plaintiffs control the quality of such products. Accordingly, Defendants use of the
DUTCHCRAFT trade dress constitutes false designation of origin and false description or
representation that Defendants products originate from, or are offered, sponsored, authorized,
licensed by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiffs, and is thereby likely to confuse customers.
74. As a result of Defendants conduct, the public is likely to believe that Defendants
vodka bearing the DUTCHCRAFT trade dress is sponsored by or otherwise affiliated with
Plaintiffs.
75. Defendants conduct is gross, wanton, and willful, and is intended to reap the
benefit of Plaintiffs goodwill in the KETEL ONE Trade Dress, and constitutes common law
trade dress infringement and unfair competition.
19

76. As a result of Defendants unlawful actions, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive
relief, an award of their actual damages, and an accounting of any profits enjoyed by Defendant
as a result of its unlawful conduct. Moreover, due to Defendants gross, wanton, willful fraud,
and other morally culpable conduct, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
COUNT VII
(Trademark Infringement Under The Laws Of Other States)
78. Defendants actions as described above constitute trademark infringement under
the laws of all other states in which DUTCHCRAFT vodka is sold.
COUNT VIII
(Trademark Dilution Under The Laws Of Other States)
82. Defendants actions as described above constitute trademark dilution under the
laws of all other states in which DUTCHCRAFT vodka is sold.
20

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment:
1. Preliminarily and/or permanently enjoining Defendant, its partners, agents,
employees, all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant, and all persons or
entities in the chain of distribution for DUTCHCRAFT vodka, from:
(a) Continuing to use the DUTCHCRAFT trade dress, or any other label
confusingly similar to Plaintiffs KETEL ONE Trade Dress, on or in connection with its
DUTCHCRAFT product;
(b) Using any false designation of origin or false description, or representing
or suggesting directly or by implication that Defendant is affiliated with, associated with,
authorized by, or otherwise connected to Plaintiffs, or authorized by Plaintiffs to use the
DUTCHCRAFT trade dress;
(c) Using any simulation, reproduction, copy, or colorable imitation of
Plaintiffs KETEL ONE Trade Dress in connection with the promotion, advertisement, display,
sale, offering for sale, manufacture, production, circulation, or distribution of any product or
service;
21

(d) Engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with
Plaintiffs, or constituting infringement of the KETEL ONE Trade Dress; or
(e) Instructing, assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or entity in
engaging in or performing any of the activities referred to in subparagraphs (a) through (d)
above;
2. Ordering that Defendant be required to recall from the trade and all distribution
channels any and all products, packaging, advertising, and promotional materials bearing the
DUTCHCRAFT trade dress;
3. Ordering Defendant to undertake a corrective advertising campaign of sufficient
scope to remedy its infringing and otherwise actionable conduct;
4. Ordering Defendant to deliver to the Court for destruction, or show proof of
destruction of, any and all products, packaging, advertising, and promotional materials in
Defendants possession or control that use the DUTCHCRAFT trade dress or any other
configuration that is confusingly similar to the KETEL ONE Trade Dress;
5. Ordering Defendant to file with the Court and serve on Plaintiffs, within thirty
(30) days after entry of a final injunction, a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the
manner and form in which Defendant has complied with the injunction;
6. Awarding Plaintiffs compensation for any and all damages, injury or harm
suffered as a result of Defendants infringing and otherwise actionable conduct;
7. Ordering that judgment be rendered against Defendant and that Defendant
account to Plaintiffs for all profits received from the sale of products and services derived
directly or indirectly from the wrongful acts of Defendant described herein;
22

8. Ordering that the award of profits resulting from Defendants infringement, unfair
competition, and false designation of origin be trebled;
9. Ordering that Plaintiffs be awarded interest, including pre-judgment interest, on
the foregoing sums;
10. Ordering that Plaintiffs be awarded their costs in connection with this suit,
including reasonable attorneys fees and expenses;
11. Ordering that Plaintiffs be awarded punitive damages as appropriate to deter any
future violations of Plaintiffs rights;
12. Ordering such other actions as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent the
trade and public from deriving the mistaken impression that any products or services offered,
advertised, or promoted by or on behalf of Defendant are authorized by Plaintiffs or related in
any way to Plaintiffs products or services; and
13. Ordering such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: July 11, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,

____/s/_Brendan J. ORourke______
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Brendan J. ORourke
Victoria L. Loughery
Eleven Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Tel: 212.969.3000
Fax: 212.969.2900
E-mail: borourke@proskauer.com
vloughery@proskauer.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Ketel One Trade Dress Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ketel One Trade Dress Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brendan J.

You might also like