|
Bonnie L. Hemenway (BH 2246) Barbra
S. Levy (BL-3306) JONES,
DAY, REAVIS & POGUE 599
Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212)326-3939 Attorneys
for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK |
|
|
|
|
STARBUCKS
CORPORATION, a Washington
corporation; and STARBUCKS U.S.
BRANDS, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiffs, v. WOLFE'S BOROUGH COFFEE, INC., a New
Hampshire corporation, dba BLACK BEAR
MICRO ROASTERY, Defendant. |
|
No. 01-CV- 5981 Judge Swain COMPLAINT
FOR TRADEMARK DILUTION, TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT, VIOLATION OF
SECTION 43(a) OF THE LANHAM ACT, VIOLATION
OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS
LAW §§ 349 AND 350 AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
UNDER NEW YORK COMMON LAW DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
This is an action by plaintiffs Starbucks Corporation and Starbucks U.S.
Brands,
Inc.
("Plaintiffs"), for damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
for defendant's willful
misappropriation
of and damage to Plaintiffs' registered trademark, "Starbucks®."
2.
Plaintiff Starbucks Corporation ("Starbucks") is the largest
and best-known
purveyor
of specialty coffees in North America. Starbucks distinctive trademarks
instantly
identify
Starbucks highly successful coffee based beverages and other products to
millions of
consumers.
Defendant Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc., dba Black Bear Micro Roastery
("Black
Bear")
is improperly seeking to benefit from Plaintiffs' substantial investment in the
Starbucks®
mark
by selling coffee under the offensive variation of that mark,
"Charbucks." Black Bear
seeks
simultaneously to trade off of the premium reputation the Starbucks® mark has
come to
enjoy
among consumers, and to tarnish that reputation by associating
Starbucks' trademark with
coffee
that is overroasted, and thus unappealing. As a result of defendant's
actions, Starbucks
reputation
for premium quality is being diluted, the value of its trademark is
being diminished,
and
consumers are being misled and confused. This action seeks injunctive
relief and damages
for
the harm defendant has caused.
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
3.
Subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this
Complaint is based
upon:
(i) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) as an action arising under the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§
1051 et. seq.; and the Trademark Dilution Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(c)
and 1127; and
(ii)
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) as an action between citizens of different states
where the matter in
controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Subject matter
jurisdiction
over those of Plaintiffs' claims that arise under state law is based
upon the principles
of
supplemental jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and the
provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1338(b) as an action asserting a claim for unfair
competition joined with a substantial and
related
claim under the trademark laws.
4.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that
venue of this action
is
proper in the district pursuant to:
(i) 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that a substantial part of the
events
given to the claims herein occurred in this judicial district; and/or
(ii) 28 U.S.C. § 1400, in
that
defendant has committed acts of infringement and regularly sells the
product that is the
subject of this action in this district.
THE
PARTIES
5.
Plaintiff Starbucks is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the
State of Washington, with its principal place of business
located in Seattle, Washington. Since
1971,
it has done business under the trade names "Starbucks",
"Starbucks Coffee Company" and
"Starbucks
Coffee."
6. Plaintiff
Starbucks U.S. Brands, Inc. ("U.S. Brands") is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of
California, with its principal place of business located
in Burlingame, California. U.S. Brands is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Starbucks. Ownership
of the trademarks described in this
complaint is vested in U.S. Brands. Starbucks is a licensee of
such trademarks.
7. Plaintiffs
are informed and believe and thereupon allege that defendant Black
Bear is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New Hampshire with
its principal place of business located in
Tuftonborough, New Hampshire. Plaintiffs
are
informed and believe that Black Bear
manufactures and sells to the general public, including to
consumers who reside in the State of New
York and the Southern District of New York, roasted
coffee beans and related goods.
ALLEGATIONS
COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Starbucks
and its Business
8.
Starbucks is the best-known vendor of specialty coffees in America today.
Beginning in 1971 as a single,
Seattle-based coffee shop, Starbucks has grown to operate more
than
4,310 retail locations throughout North America and in 19 foreign countries.
Starbucks also
supplies
premium, fresh-roasted coffees to thousands of restaurants and other accounts
throughout
the world. Starbucks revenues in 2000 exceeded $2.1 billion - an increase of
more
than
29% over the previous year. Starbucks achievements have generated tremendous
attention
in
the media - hundreds of articles have been written about the company over the
last few years
-
and growing, widespread awareness of Starbucks and its products among consumers
worldwide.
9.
The key to Starbucks' phenomenal success is the consistent high quality
and
reputation
of its fresh roasted specialty coffees, brewed coffee and espresso beverages and
the
other
products and services it provides. Starbucks has a reputation for excellence,
particularly in
the
area of roasted coffees and coffee beverages, and is widely recognized for its
knowledgeable
staff
and superior service.
The
Starbucks® Trademark
10.
For more than 25 years, Starbucks has used the trademark "Starbucks®"
(the
"Starbucks
Mark") both to identify its goods and services and as the name of the
company. The
Starbucks
Mark is the subject of more than 56 trademark registrations issued by the United
States
Patent and Trademark Office, and has been registered in more than 105 foreign
countries.
11.
Starbucks has spent substantial time, effort and money advertising and
promoting
the
Starbucks Mark throughout the United States and elsewhere:
(a) Starbucks
owns, or operates through affiliates and licensees, more than
3,523
retail stores in North America. These stores - which are visited by more than
10.9 (total)
million
customers per week - carry a full line of coffee, cappuccino, espresso-based
beverages
and teas brewed and served on premises; blended beverages,
up to 30 different varieties of
Starbucks® brand roasted coffees; baked goods and
confections; and other branded merchandise.
Each store prominently displays the Starbucks Mark on
exterior signage and at multiple locations
within the store.
(b) Starbucks
has licensed Host Marriott Services Corporation to operate
more than 152 coffee kiosks ("Starbucks Kiosks")
in major airports in the U.S. and Canada. The
Starbucks Kiosks sell Starbucks® brand coffees
and other beverages prepared on site in
accordance with strict beverage preparation and quality
control procedures established by
Starbucks, which are intended to maintain the high and
consistent standards imposed by
Starbucks
on its own stores. The Starbucks Kiosks utilize the Starbucks Mark in a manner
similar
to that employed in Starbucks-owned retail outlets.
(c) Starbucks
coffees are served from dedicated retail areas located in 431
Bames
& Noble Bookstores ("B&N Cafes"). B&N Cafes serve
Starbucks® brand coffee and
espresso
beverages brewed on site in accordance with procedures established by Starbucks,
and
prominently
display the Starbucks Mark.
(d) Starbucks
has entered into similar license agreements with major U.S.
supermarkets,
such as Safeway, Fred Meyer and Albertson's, through which Starbucks locations
are
operated within the supermarkets.
(e) Starbucks
sells its coffee to hundreds of restaurants, airlines (including
United
Airlines), sport and entertainment venues, motion picture theaters, hotels
(including all
corporate-owned
Sheraton and Westin Hotels in the U.S., which offer Starbucks®
coffee in-
room) and cruise ship lines. Starbucks permits these
customers to use the Starbucks Mark on
their menus and in certain promotional materials.
(f) Starbucks
distributes several exclusive coffee blends, Starbucks® brand ice
cream and bottled Frappuccino® coffee drinks at
grocery stores and similar retailers nationwide.
Each of these products prominently bears the Starbucks Mark.
(g) Starbucks
operates an Internet Web site (<www.starbucks.com>) that
generates on average, 350,000 "hits" from visitors
per week. The Starbucks Mark is
incorporated into many of the individual "pages"
within this site, and is displayed on much of the
branded merchandise offered for sale on-line.
As a result of the
foregoing and similar use and promotion, the Starbucks Mark has
become a famous and highly distinctive trademark.
Black
Bear's Misappropriation and Misuse of the Starbucks Mark
12.
Defendant Black Bear has sought improperly to capitalize on Starbucks
investment
in the creation and positive reputation of the Starbucks Mark, and the resulting
popularity
that the Starbucks Mark has attained. Specifically, Black Bear manufactures and
sells
a
blend of roasted coffee under the name "Charbucks Blend." Inclusion of
the term "char" as
part
of the Charbucks name immediately creates, in the minds of many consumers, the
image of
charred
coffee beans, which has obvious negative connotations among potential purchasers
of
coffee
products. Further, "Charbucks" is so similar to "Starbucks"
that consumers who hear or
read
the Charbucks name will instantly think of Starbucks.
13.
After learning of Black Bear's use of the Charbucks name, counsel for
Starbucks
contacted
Black Bear and demanded that it cease and desist from all further use of the
Charbucks
mark.
After extended negotiations. Black Bear and Plaintiffs reached an agreement in
principle
pursuant
to which Black Bear agreed to terminate its use of the Charbucks name. Black
Bear,
however,
refused to finalize this agreement, and continued to sell Charbucks Blend
coffee.
14.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that, for some
period of
time
following their negotiations with Black Bear, defendant ceased selling Charbucks
Blend
products.
However, Plaintiffs subsequently learned that Black Bear had renewed its sale of
Charbucks
coffee products, and Plaintiffs therefore renewed their demand that Black Bear
terminate
its use of this mark. To date, however, Black Bear has failed and refused to
comply
with
this demand. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Black Bear is continuing
to sell
Charbucks
Blend, including to consumers located in the State of New York and the Southern
District
of New York, including by means of orders taken via its Web site and by a toll
free
telephone ordering system.
15.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Black Bear
chose to
use
the Charbucks mark with the intent and purpose of trading off of the goodwill
that the
Starbucks
Mark currently enjoys and/or misleading and confusing consumers. As a result,
Plaintiffs'
reputation is being tarnished and the value and distinctiveness of Plaintiffs'
Starbucks
Mark
are being diminished. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege
that, absent
the
intervention of this Court, defendant's illegal actions will continue, and
Plaintiffs and
consumers
will continue to be harmed.
Count I
(for
Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(c) and 1127)
16.
Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate herein by reference each
and every
allegation
set forth above.
17.
Plaintiffs have used and continue to use the Starbucks Mark in interstate
commerce. The Starbucks Mark has become and continues to be
"famous" within the meaning
of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
18.
Defendant has made and threatens to continue to make commercial use in
commerce of a variation of the Starbucks Mark in a manner
that causes dilution of the distinctive
quality of such mark, and lessens the capacity of such mark
to identify and distinguish Plaintiffs'
goods and services.
19.
Plaintiffs are entitled to an order from this Court preliminarily and
permanently
enjoining defendant, its agents, employees and others acting
in concert with them, from directly
or indirectly making any further commercial use of the mark
"Charbucks," or any other names,
marks or logos that are substantially similar to the
Starbucks Mark.
20.
Because defendant has willfully intended to cause dilution of the
Starbucks Mark,
Plaintiffs are further entitled, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§
1117 and 1125(c)(2), to recover all
damages
sustained as a result of defendant's unlawful conduct, including: (i)
defendant's profits;
(ii)
Plaintiffs' damages; (iii) Plaintiffs' costs of suit; and (iv) Plaintiffs'
reasonable attorneys'
fees.
Count
II
(for
Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1))
21.
Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate by reference each and
every
allegation
set forth above.
22.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted federal
trademark
registrations
to the Starbucks Mark. Copies of certain of these registrations are attached
hereto
as
Exhibit "A." U.S. Brands owns the exclusive trademark rights and
privileges in and to the
Starbucks
Mark in the United States. U.S. Brands licenses its trademark rights in the
Starbucks
Mark
to Starbucks, which uses the Starbucks Mark as a designation of source and
quality for its
goods
and services. Starbucks uses the registration symbol"® "
on its goods and in advertising
associated with the Starbucks Mark.
23.
Defendant is using a copy or colorable imitation of the Starbucks Mark in
a
manner that is likely to confuse, deceive and/or cause
mistake among consumers and therefore is
infringing Plaintiffs' rights in the Starbucks Mark in
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).
24.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for defendant's infringement of
the
Starbucks Mark, in that: (i) the Starbucks Mark is unique
and valuable property, injury to which
cannot adequately be compensated by monetary damages; (ii)
the damages to Plaintiffs resulting
from the infringement are not precisely and fully
ascertainable; (iii) the infringement injures and
threatens to continue to injure Plaintiffs' reputation and
goodwill; and (iv) the damage resulting
to Plaintiffs from defendant's wrongful conduct, and the
conduct itself, are continuing, and
Plaintiffs
would be required to bring a multiplicity of suits to achieve full redress for
the injuries
caused
thereby.
25. Unless
restrained, defendant's infringement of the Starbucks Mark will continue
to
cause irreparable injury to Plaintiffs, both during the pendency of this action
and thereafter.
Plaintiffs
are therefore entitled to an order from this Court preliminarily and permanently
enjoining
defendant and its agents, employees and others acting in concert with them, from
directly
or indirectly infringing the Starbucks Mark in any manner, including by using
any name,
mark,
design or logo that is confusingly similar to the Starbucks Mark in connection
with the
sale,
offer for sale, advertising, or promotion of any goods or services.
26. Plaintiffs
are further entitled to recover damages sustained in consequence of
defendant's
wrongful conduct, in an amount to be determined; to recover defendant's profits;
and
to
recover Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and other costs herein. Based upon the
circumstances of the
case,
including the willful nature of defendant's conduct. Plaintiffs are further
entitled to recover
treble
the amount found as actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
Count
III
(for
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
27. Plaintiffs
specifically reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
allegation
set forth above.
28. The acts of
defendant alleged herein, including its use of the "Charbucks" mark,
are
likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the
affiliation, connection,
or
association of defendant or defendant's product with Plaintiffs, or as to the
sponsorship, or
approval
of defendant's goods, services or commercial activities by Plaintiffs.
Defendant's
actions
further misrepresent the nature, characteristics or qualities of defendant's
goods, services
or
commercial activities.
29. Plaintiffs
have no adequate remedy at law for the foregoing wrongful conduct of
defendant,
in that: (i) defendant's actions damage and threaten to continue to damage
Plaintiffs'
unique
and valuable property, injury to which cannot adequately be compensated by
monetary
damages;
(ii) the damages to Plaintiffs from defendant's wrongful actions are not
precisely and
fully
ascertainable; (iii) the wrongful acts of defendant injure and threaten to
continue to injure
Plaintiffs'
reputation and goodwill; and (iv) the damage resulting to Plaintiffs from
defendant's
wrongful
conduct, and the conduct itself, are continuing, and Plaintiffs would be
required to
bring
a multiplicity of suits to achieve full compensation for the injuries caused
thereby.
&