Sugarfina v. Sweet Pete's - Complaint

Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 40 Page ID #:1
1 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

Jennifer Trusso Salinas, Bar No. 198579
2 jennifer.salinas@troutmansanders.com
Andre De La Cruz, Bar No. 245175
3 andre.delacruz@troutmansanders.com
Jenny Kim, Bar No. 282562
4 jenny.kim@troutmansanders.com
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
5 Irvine, CA 92614-2545
Telephone: 949.622.2700
6 Facsimile: 949.622.2739
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUGARFINA, INC.
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
T ROUTM AN S ANDERS LLP
12 SUGARFINA, INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:17-cv-4456

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
corporation,
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff,
14 COMPLAINT FOR FEDERAL FALSE
v. DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND
15 UNFAIR COMPETITION, FEDERAL
SWEET PETES LLC a Florida TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT,
16 limited liability company; ML FEDERAL COPYRIGHT
SWEETS, LLC, a Pennsylvania INFRINGEMENT, STATE UNFAIR
17 limited liability company; PETER COMPETITION, COMMON LAW
BEHRINGER, an individual; and TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT,
18 ALLISON BEHRINGER, an PATENT INFRINGEMENT, AND
individual, UNJUST ENRICHMENT
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUGARFINA, INC.S COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff Sugarfina, Inc. (Sugarfina) complains and alleges as follows

2 against Defendants Sweet Petes LLC, ML Sweets, LLC, Peter Behringer,
3 and Allison Behringer (collectively, Sweet Petes or Defendants).
4 NATURE OF THE ACTION
5 1. Sugarfina revolutionized the candy industry when it was founded in
6 2012. Its founders, Joshua Resnick and Rosie ONeill, dreamt of creating a luxury
7 boutique retailer of curated candies and sweets. The inspiration behind Sugarfina
8 was sprouted during a screening of the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate
9 Factory and the simple question: why should kids have all the fun?
10 2. Since 2012, Mr. Resnick and Ms. ONeill have traveled the world to
11 meet with artisan candy-makers and have taste-tested thousands of candies in their
12 search to find the best of the best. Today, this experience has culminated in
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Sugarfina redefining confectioneries and the associated experience, including

14 painstakingly creating high quality, distinctive packaging for its redefined
15 confectionaries. In the years since its founding, Sugarfina has established itself as
16 offering unique luxury products and a highly engaged customer base.
17 3. Sugarfinas efforts have now grown to a thriving business that
18 employs over 300 people and operates across various commercial channels,
19 including storefronts, e-commerce, wholesale, and corporate partnerships.
20 4. Sugarfinas retail channel focuses on building a footprint at high-end
21 luxury spaces. Currently, Sugarfina operates over twenty-four (24) retail boutiques,
22 with many additional storefronts planned throughout the globe. Sugarfina also
23 operates a series of shop-in-shops at fourteen (14) Nordstroms locations in the
24 United States and Canada. Its wholesale channel caters to premium reseller partners
25 such as Bergdorf Goodman and the Four Seasons Hotels. Its corporate channel
26 caters to institutional clients seeking to personalize packaging or coordinate events.
27 5. At present, Sugarfinas distribution channels have been well
28 established and the Sugarfina brand itself has come to be uniquely synonymous with
-1-
1 luxury boutique candy. Although international expansion will continue, Sugarfina

2 has already become famous for its luxury items throughout the United States and
3 Canada.
4 6. From inception, Sugarfina has cultivated unmistakable design
5 features in its products and packaging. These design features have been used
6 consistently throughout the course of its business.
7 7. Sugarfina currently has approximately 140 different lines of candy,
8 i.e., products, each presented in a revolutionary and sophisticated presentation and
9 packaging that evidences Sugarfinas commitment to luxury and quality. Among
10 the signature innovations of Sugarfinas branding is its presentation of candy in
11 museum-quality Lucite that emphasizes the artisanal and rarified quality of a
12 gourmet small-portion tasting experience. Because of its innovative packaging and

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 distinctive design, coupled with impeccable attention to the quality of its candy,
14 Sugarfina products continue to thrive.
15 8. Sugarfinas creative achievements have resulted in broad intellectual
16 property protection for Sugarfinas innovations, including design patents, trademarks,
17 copyrights, and trade dress protection. Because of its success, Sugarfinas
18 innovations have been the subject of emulation by its competitors, who have
19 attempted to capitalize on Sugarfinas success by imitating Sugarfinas innovative,
20 elegant, and distinctive products and packaging.
21 9. One of these imitators is Sweet Petes, which has introduced a line of
22 products to compete with Sugarfina products. Instead of pursuing independent
23 product development, Sweet Petes has chosen not only to copy Sugarfinas
24 innovative, distinctive, and elegant product and packaging design, but has also
25 copied the types of candy, and protectable names, offered by Sugarfina, in violation
26 of Sugarfinas valuable intellectual property rights.
27
28
-2-
1 10. As alleged below, Sweet Petes has made and packaged its candy to
2 look like Sugarfinas products through widespread patents, copyright, trademark,
3 and trade dress infringement.
4 11. By this action, Sugarfina seeks to put a stop to Sweet Petes illegal
5 conduct and obtain compensation for the violations that have occurred thus far.
6 THE PARTIES
7 12. Plaintiff Sugarfina is a Delaware corporation having its principal
8 place of business at 3915 West 102nd Street, Inglewood, California 90303.
9 13. Defendant Sweet Petes LLC is a Florida limited liability company
10 with its principal office at 400 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202.
11 14. On information and belief, Defendant ML Sweets LLC is a Delaware
12 limited liability company with its principal office at 794 Penllyn Blue Bell Pike,
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422. The sole manager of ML Sweets LLC is Marcus
14 Lemonis, the star of the reality television show on CNBC The Profit, which
15 featured Sweet Petes in an episode that first aired on April 1, 2014. ML Sweets
16 LLC is one of the managers of Sweet Petes LLC.
17 15. On information and belief, Defendant Peter Behringer is an
18 individual that may be contacted at 400 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida
19 32202. Mr. Behringer is the founder of Sweet Petes LLC.
20 16. On information and belief, Defendant Allison Behringer is an
21 individual that may be contacted at 400 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida
22 32202. Ms. Behringer is the wife of Peter Behringer and one of the managers of
23 Sweet Petes LLC.
24 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at
25 all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant,
26 employee, and/or alter ego of each of the other Defendants, and in doing the things
27 hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course and scope of said agency and/or
28 employment, and with the permission and consent, express and/or implied, of the
-3-
1 other Defendants herein. A unity of interest and ownership exists between and
2 among the Defendants such that there is no distinction between or among the
3 Defendants and if the acts alleged herein by one Defendant are treated as the acts of
4 that Defendant alone, an inequitable result will follow. On information and belief,
5 Defendants have utilized these entities to commit the wrongs alleged herein, to
6 shield themselves from personal liability for their conduct, and to hinder, delay,
7 and/or defraud others. In order to effect justice herein, the corporate fiction
8 maintained by Defendants must be pierced, all relief and damages should be
9 awarded against all Defendants jointly and severally, and all acts of the Defendants
10 should be treated as the acts of the other Defendants.
11 JURISDICTION
12 18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1121
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 (action arising under the Lanham Act); 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question); 28
14 U.S.C. 1338(a) (any Act of Congress relating to patents, copyrights, or
15 trademarks); 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) (action asserting claim of unfair competition
16 joined with a substantial and related claim under the trademark laws); 28 U.S.C.
17 1332(a)(1) (diversity jurisdiction); and 28 U.S.C. 1367 (supplemental
18 jurisdiction).
19 19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sweet Petes because it has
20 committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C.
21 271 and 15 U.S.C. 1114 and 1125, and places infringing products into the stream
22 of commerce, with the knowledge or understanding that such products are sold in the
23 State of California, including in this District. The acts by Sweet Petes cause injury
24 to Sugarfina within this District.
25 20. Upon information and belief, Sweet Petes also derives substantial
26 revenue from the sale of infringing products within this District, expects its actions to
27 have consequences within this District, and derives substantial revenue from
28 interstate and international commerce.
-4-
1 VENUE
2 21. Venue is proper within this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and
3 1367(a) because Sweet Petes transacts business within this district and offers for
4 sale in this district products that infringe the Sugarfina trade dress and trademarks. In
5 addition, venue is proper because Sugarfinas principal place of business is in this
6 district and Sugarfina suffered harm in this district. Moreover, a substantial part of
7 the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
8 BACKGROUND
9 Sugarfinas Innovations
10 22. Sugarfina is a luxury candy boutique well recognized for its
11 distinctive products sold under the SUGARFINA brand using novel and original
12 designs in its packaging. Defendants are well aware that Sugarfina is the owner of
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 numerous design patents, trademark registrations, and copyright registrations,

14 including the following (having received a cease and desist letter dated March 15,
15 2016).
16 U.S. Design Patent No. D755,641
17 U.S. Copyright Reg. No. VA0001963483
18 U.S. Copyright Reg. No. VA0001963482
19 23. As a direct result of its innovative and distinctive design and
20 packaging, Sugarfina products have been a great success, and their packaging,
21 colors, and presentation have immediately become uniquely associated with
22 Sugarfina as their source.
23 24. Sugarfina products, with its branded packaging, have been
24 extensively advertised throughout the United States to capitalize on the existing
25 distribution channels, including social media and internet marketing, with the vast
26 majority of the advertisements featuring photographs of the distinctive design of the
27 Sugarfina products.
28
-5-
1 25. In addition, Sugarfinas products have received unsolicited comment

2 and attention in print and social media throughout the world. Each new Sugarfina
3 product is the subject of positive commentary and receives unsolicited praise from
4 independent social commentators. Frequently, these unsolicited commentaries are
5 accompanied by images of various Sugarfina products, including their unique
6 packaging.
7 26. The Sugarfina product design has come to represent and symbolize
8 the superb quality of Sugarfinas products and enjoys substantial goodwill among
9 consumers.
10 27. Sugarfina has received a number of awards for its signature designs
11 and innovations including, but not limited to, the Addy Gold award and the Chain
12 Store Age Breakout Retailer award.

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Sugarfinas IP Rights
14 Sugarfinas Trademarks
15 28. Sweet Petes products are not merely likely to confuse customers;
16 they are certain to confuse customers, and have actually confused customers, as
17 Sweet Petes sells products with exact or near-exact replicas of Sugarfinas marks,
18 including the following:
19 CUBA LIBRE
20 PEACH BELLINI
21 FRUTTINI
22 CANDY BENTO BOX
23 CANDY CUBE
24 CANDY CONCIERGE
25 29. Sweet Petes use of Sugarfinas marks creates a high likelihood of
26 confusion, as Sweet Petes alters virtually nothing about the marks and intentionally
27 imports the entire appearance, sound, and meaning of Sugarfinas marks to profit
28 from the customers association of the marks with Sugarfina. Sweet Petes also
-6-
1 timed its use of Sugarfinas marks to follow closely after Sugarfinas first use.
2 30. CUBA LIBREattached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
3 U.S. Registration No. 4,943,322. Sugarfina first used the CUBA LIBRE mark on
4 June 6, 2012, and filed a trademark application for this mark on August 14, 2015.
5 Sweet Petes began using the same mark on a similar product shortly after in 2016.
6 31. The protected mark CUBA LIBRE is used in its entirety on Sweet
7 Petes producti.e., with the same appearance and sound. Both products are
8 gummy candiesi.e., with the same meaning. On both products, the mark appears
9 on a die-cut label consisting of a circle and a strip over a clear cube, making the
10 overall look and feel of Sweet Petes use of the mark similar to Sugarfinas.
11 32. PEACH BELLINIattached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct
12 copy of U.S. Registration No. 4,981752. Sugarfina first used the PEACH
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 BELLINI mark on December 3, 2013, and filed a trademark application for this
14 mark on August 14, 2015. Sweet Petes began using the same mark on a similar
15 product in 2016.
16 33. The protected mark PEACH BELLINI is used in its entirety on
17 Sweet Petes producti.e., with the same appearance and sound. Both products are
18 gummy candiesi.e., with the same meaning. On both products, the mark appears
19 on a die-cut label consisting of a circle and a strip over a clear cube, making the
20 overall look and feel of Sweet Petes use of the mark similar to Sugarfinas.
21 34. FRUTTINISugarfina has common law trademark rights in the
22 FRUTTINI mark. Sugarfina began offering Blood Orange FRUTTINI and Italian
23 Lemon FRUTTINI in August 2015. Sweet Petes began using the same mark for a
24 similar purpose in 2016.
25 35. The protected mark FRUTTINI is used in its entirety, though with a
26 slight spelling variation, on Sweet Petes producti.e., with the same appearance
27 and sound. Both products are gummy candiesi.e., with the same meaning. On
28 both products, the mark appears on a die-cut label consisting of a circle and a strip
-7-
1 over a clear cube, making the overall look and feel of Sweet Petes use of the mark
2 similar to Sugarfinas.
3 36. CANDY BENTO BOXattached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct
4 copy of U.S. Registration No. 4,838,646. Sugarfina first used the CANDY BENTO
5 BOX mark on November 23, 2013, and filed a trademark application for this
6 mark on January 15, 2015. Sweet Petes began calling its candy boxes candy
7 bento boxes and bento boxes in 2016.
8 37. Again, the protected mark CANDY BENTO BOX is used in its
9 entirety on Sweet Petes producti.e., with the same appearance and sound. Both
10 products are candy boxes in which a number of smaller CANDY CUBES are
11 nested withini.e., with the same meaning.
12 38. CANDY CUBEattached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 of U.S. Application No. 87/264,489. Sugarfina began using CANDY CUBE on

14 or around 2013 and filed a trademark application for this mark on December 11,
15 2016. Sweet Petes began using the same mark on identical packaging in 2016.
16 39. The protected mark CANDY CUBE is used in its entirety on
17 Sweet Petes producti.e., with the same appearance and sound. Both products are
18 packaging for candiesi.e., with the same meaning. On both products, the mark
19 appears on a die-cut label consisting of a circle and a strip over a clear cube,
20 making the overall look and feel of Sweet Petes use of the mark similar to
21 Sugarfinas.
22 40. CANDY CONCIERGESugarfina has common law trademark
23 rights in the CANDY CONCIERGE mark. Sugarfina began calling its customer
24 service team the CANDY CONCIERGE in 2013. Sweet Petes began using the
25 same mark for the identical purpose in 2016.
26 41. The protected mark CANDY CONCIERGE is used in its entirety on
27 Sweet Petes websitei.e., with the same appearance and sound. Both uses of
28 CANDY CONCIERGE refer to the respective companies customer service team
-8-
1 i.e., with the same meaning.

2 Sugarfinas Trade Dress
3 42. Sugarfina holds trade dress protection in the design and appearance of all of
4 its confectionaries offerings, together with their distinctive product packaging.
5 43. Sugarfinas product packaging and presentation are radically
6 different from the candy stores that preceded it. It has a distinctive presentation and
7 appearancea total image and overall appearance that is unique, including features
8 such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, and sales
9 techniques. As shown below, the end result is a luxury product that is accessible
10 and visually appealing to the ordinary observer. Sugarfinas product design
11 immediately became closely associated with Sugarfina.
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15 44. Each of these elements of the Sugarfina products is distinctive and
16 serves to identify Sugarfina as the source of its products.
17 45. At present, certain elements of Sugarfinas product packaging
18 designs comprise the trade dress at issue in this case (the Sugarfina Trade Dress)
19 and may include:
20 the solid borderline around the product package
21 the use of a magnetic latch
22 a rectangular product package with minimal lettering;
23 the inside bottom surface of the product package dominated by a
24 series of cube wells or trays;
25 the series of cube wells each being spaced from one another within
26 the product package; and
27 a series of clear cubes containing candy product that each reside in a
28
- 10 -
1 corresponding cube well and are immediately visible upon opening the box.
2 46. Despite being on clear notice of infringement of these and other
3 intellectual property rights owned by Sugarfina, Defendants have capitalized on
4 Sugarfinas distinctive, novel, and original designs that customers have come to
5 associate with the high quality and innovative candy products that Sugarfina offers.
6 47. Defendants have purposely taken steps to increase Sweet Petes
7 similarity to Sugarfina, and to encourage consumers to confuse the two brands so as
8 to profit from the goodwill Sugarfina has acquired through its careful and diligent
9 marketing.
10 Sugarfinas Design Patents
11 48. Sugarfina has protected its innovative designs and packaging through
12 design patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 Sugarfina design patents cover the many famous ornamental features of Sugarfina
14 candy, such as the spaced cube arrangement, the spaced cube receiving wells, and
15 the distinctive use of a box to hold the clear cubes.
16 49. Among others, Sugarfina owns all right, title, and interest in and to
17 the asserted U.S. Design Pat. No. D755,641, titled Packaging, a true and correct
18 copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5.
19 Sugarfinas Copyrights
20 50. Sugarfina has protected its innovative designs and packaging through
21 copyrights registered with the United States Copyright Office. The Sugarfina
22 copyrights cover the same famous and original ornamental features of Sugarfina
23 candy packaging as the design patents, such as the spaced cube arrangement, the
24 spaced cube receiving wells, and the distinctive use of a box to hold the clear cubes.
25 51. Sugarfina owns all right, title, and interest in and to each of the
26 following asserted copyrights, true and correct copies of which are attached as
27 Exhibits 6 and 7: Reg. Nos. VA0001963482 and VA0001963483.
28
- 11 -
1 Sweet Petes Infringing Products

2 52. Defendants have imported into or sold in the United States the
3 following products, each of which infringes one or more of Sugarfinas Intellectual
4 Property Rights: Cuba Libre Cocktail, Ooh So Organic Peach Bellini, Candy
5 Bento Box or Bento box, Passion Fruitini, and Candy Cube, among others
6 (collectively, the Accused Products). Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct
7 copy of the Accused Products.
8 53. Rather than innovate and develop its own packaging and unique style
9 for its candy products, Sweet Petes chose to copy Sugarfinas innovative style in
10 these infringing products.
11 54. Sweet Petes had many options in developing its candy. Indeed,
12 Peterbrooke Chocolatier (a predecessor entity to Sweet Petes) had sold candy for
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 as many as 30 years, but never embodied the same combination of design elements
14 of Sugarfinas presentation.
15 55. Sweet Petes was a failing business prior to its radical transformation
16 into a Sugarfina copycat. As Peter Behringer and Alison Behringer admitted in an
17 episode of the CNBC show, The Profit, published on March 28, 2014, at
18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-kHNxz5NFI&t=178s, Sweet Petes lost
19 $17,000 that year and lost $3,000 the previous year, even though Sweet Petes was
20 not paying Peter Behringer even a fair wage of $12.00 per hour as an employee.1
21 Peter Behringer and Alison Behringer made only $10,000 combined in 2013.
22 56. Also during this time period before 2014, none of Sweet Petes
23 products were marketed using Sugarfinas intellectual property. The products
24 shown in the episode of The Profit are markedly different from the products sold by
25 Sweet Petes today, and used generic packaging with an entirely different look and
26 feel from Sugarfinas distinctive packaging. In contrast to Sugarfinas clean lines,
27
1
28 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-kHNxz5NFI&t=178s, at 6:25 to 7:00.
- 12 -
1 disciplined color palette, and subtle details underscoring the sophisticated tastes of
2 adult customers, Sweet Petes prior look of carnival motifs of oversized lollipops,
3 chalkboard signage, and wild patterns and colors have the aesthetic of a childrens
4 candy store.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 13 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
57. Sweet Petes experienced a dramatic turnaround in success and
15
profitability after it began infringing Sugarfinas trade dress, trademarks, patent,
16
and copyrights. In an episode of the Shark Tank Podcast, published on September
17
21, 2016, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwpHRzdl5T4, Peter Behringer
18
stated that Sweet Petes was earning revenue of $260,000 per month (or $3,120,000
19
per year), up from $7,500 per month (or 90,000 per year) before 2014.2 The newly
20
revamped Sweet Petes is shown to rely heavily on several design elements of
21
Sugarfinas distinctive packaging and marketing.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwpHRzdl5T4, at 27:05 to 27:32.
- 14 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 15 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 58. Thus, without investing any of the resources or innovation required

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 in developing a strong brand identity and intellectual property portfolio, Sweet

14 Petes reaped all the benefits of Sugarfinas investment and goodwill in the market.
15 Infringement of Sugarfinas Trademarks
16 59. In addition to copying Sugarfinas Product Trade Dress, Sweet Pete
17 has also copied numerous application icons in which Sugarfina has valid trademark
18 rights, as shown below:
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
- 16 -
1 a. CUBA LIBRE
2
Sugarfinas Original Use Sweet Petes Infringing Use
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 b. PEACH BELLINI
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 17 -
1 c. FRUTTINI
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
d. CANDY BENTO BOX
14
15 Sugarfinas Original Use Sweet Petes Infringing Use
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 18 -
1 e. CANDY CUBE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16 f. CANDY CONCIERGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19 -
1 60. Sweet Petes adoption of a trade dress that copies the Sugarfina
2 Product Trade Dress and its use of various trade names that infringe Sugarfinas
3 trademark rights is likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive consumers,
4 purchasers, and others into thinking that Sweet Petes products are Sugarfina
5 products, or that they are sponsored by or affiliated with Sugarfina, when they are
6 not.
7 61. Sugarfinas goodwill among consumers is closely tied to its position
8 as an outlier in confectioners productsthat of luxury and sophistication. Sweet
9 Petes flagrant and relentless copying of Sugarfinas intellectual property rights in
10 its candy products not only allows Sweet Petes to benefit from Sugarfinas
11 investment, but it also threatens to diminish the very important goodwill that
12 Sugarfina has cultivated with its products. The value of such goodwill is evident in
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 part in the success that resulted from Sweet Petes wrongful appropriation: after
14 stealing Sugarfinas aesthetic and branding strategies, Sweet Petes was resurrected
15 from a failing company that lost $17,000 per year to a profitable company
16 generating an annualized revenue of $3,120,000.
17 62. Sugarfinas efforts to address Sweet Petes pervasive copying of
18 Sugarfina's innovations and intellectual property directly with Sweet Petes have
19 been unsuccessful.
20 63. Sweet Petes chose to infringe Sugarfinas patent, trade dress, and
21 trademark rights through the design, packaging and promotion of its candy
22 products, and it did so willfully to trade upon the goodwill that Sugarfina has
23 developed in connection with its luxury branded products.
24 Infringement of Sugarfinas Trade Dress
25 64. Sugarfina is informed and believes that Sweet Petes began
26 producing, selling, and marketing its copycat products after Sugarfinas first use of
27 the asserted trade dress.
28
- 20 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 21 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 65. Each of Sweet Petes line of accused products embodies a
22 combination of several elements of the Sugarfina Product Trade Dress identified
23 above, namely, a product configuration with a total image and overall appearance
24 that is unique, including features such as size, shape, color or color combinations,
25 texture, graphics, and sales techniques.
26
27
28
- 22 -
1 Infringement of Sugarfinas Patent

2 66. Sugarfina was selling its designer three-by-three cell candy bento
3 boxes long before Sweet Petes. An example is shown below.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 67. In 2014, Sugarfina filed a design patent application covering its

14 unique packaging, such as the packaging shown above. That design patent
15 application issued on May 10, 2016, as U.S. Design Patent No. D755,641 (the 641
16 Patent), and is titled Packaging.
17 68. The 641 Patent claims [t]he ornamental design for a packaging, as
18 shown and described in the patent. FIG. 1 of the 641 Patent is reproduced below.
19 FIG. 1 depicts an exploded perspective view of the patented design.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 23 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
69. FIG. 2 of the 641 Patent is reproduced below. FIG. 2 depicts a
15
perspective view of the patented design.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70. FIGS. 34 of the 641 Patent are reproduced below. FIG. 3 depicts a
26
front view of the patented design. FIG. 4 depicts a rear view of the patented design.
27
28
- 24 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 71. FIG. 5 of the 641 Patent is reproduced below. FIG. 5 depicts a top
11 view of the patented design.
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 72. FIG. 6 of the 641 Patent is reproduced below. FIG. 6 depicts a side
20 view of the patented design.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 25 -
1 73. Sweet Petes began marketing a copycat product in at least 2015, a

2 sample of which is shown below.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 74. An ordinary observer of Sweet Petes candy packaging and

14 Sugarfinas patented design, giving such attention that a candy purchaser usually
15 gives, would find the two designs to be substantially the same. The 641 Patent
16 claims a packaging including three-by-three cells spaced apart and nested fully
17 within a rectangular box with high, straight walls, with a folding cover top with a
18 pull-tab at the end. As shown above, Sweet Petes design also includes three-by-
19 three cells of transparent cubes spaced apart and nested fully within a rectangular
20 box with high, straight walls, with a folding cover top with a pull-tab at the end.
21 An ordinary observer would recognize that Sweet Petes design is substantially the
22 same as the patented design in the 641 Patent. The overall impression of the two
23 designs is substantially the same.
24 75. Further, an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art would be
25 deceived into believing the Sweet Petes design is the same as the design patented
26 in the 641 Patent. Of the many prior art candy packaging types, an ordinary
27 observer would recognize that none of the prior art candy packaging types include,
28
- 26 -
1 for instance, the three-by-three cells of transparent cubes spaced apart and nested
2 fully within a rectangular box with high, straight walls, with a folding cover top
3 with a pull-tab at the end as patented in the 641 Patent.
4 76. Indeed, it is axiomatic that the 641 Patent is infringed by Sweet
5 Petes design because in the eye of an ordinary observer, the Sweet Petes design is
6 substantially the same as the claimed design in the 641 Patent. And indeed, such
7 marketplace confusion has already been shown, an example of which is below.
8
9
10
11
12
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Infringement of Sugarfinas Copyrights
25
77. In addition to the aforementioned design patent protections,
26
Sugarfina also has copyright protections for its three-piece designer candy boxes
27
28
- 27 -
1 and its designer candy bento boxes at Reg. Nos. VA0001963482 and
2 VA0001963483.
3 78. In a blatant attempt to copy Sugarfina, Sweet Petes designed and
4 developed near exact imitations of Sugarfinas registered works.
5 79. At least as early as 2016, Sweet Petes began actively selling these
6 infringing products to retailers and unwitting consumers. Sweet Petes infringing
7 products are strikingly similar imitations of Sugarfinas protected products. Sweet
8 Petes copied all the original and distinctive qualities of Sugarfinas products,
9 including the configuration of three-by-three cells or three cells of transparent cubes
10 spaced apart and nested fully within a rectangular box with high, straight walls; the
11 use of a die-cut labels on the clear cubes within the outer box; and specific graphic
12 elements designed by Sugarfina, such as the prints, patterns, and colors imprinted
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 on the boxes and labels.

14 80. Sweet Petes has no license from Sugarfina to make replicas of
15 Sugarfinas registered original works. On the contrary, at least as early as March
16 15, 2016, Sugarfina demanded that Sweet Petes cease its infringing activities.
17 Sweet Petes refused to comply and continued knowingly and willfully to create,
18 market, and distribute products infringing Sugarfinas copyrights.
19 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
20 (Trade Dress Infringement)
21 (Lanham Act Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
22 81. Sugarfina incorporates and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this
23 Complaint as though set forth in full.
24 82. Sugarfina is the owner of all right and title to the distinctive
25 Sugarfina Trade Dress. The Sugarfina Trade Dress, as embodied in Sugarfina
26 products, has acquired secondary meaning, and is not functional. In addition, the
27 Sugarfina Trade Dress, embodied in the packaging for the Sugarfina products, is
28 inherently distinctive and not functional.
- 28 -
1 83. In addition, based on extensive and consistent advertising, promotion

2 and sales throughout the United States, the Sugarfina Trade Dress has acquired
3 distinctiveness and enjoys secondary meaning among consumers, identifying
4 Sugarfina as the source of these products.
5 84. Sugarfinas extensive promotion of the distinctive Sugarfina Trade
6 Dress has resulted in Sugarfinas acquisition of valuable, legally protected rights in
7 the Sugarfina Trade Dress as well as considerable customer goodwill.
8 85. Sweet Petes line of products has misappropriated the Sugarfina
9 Trade Dress by mimicking a combination of several elements of that trade dress.
10 The manufacture and distribution of Sweet Pete products with packaging and
11 product design features that mimic a combination of several elements of the
12 Sugarfina Trade Dress is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 deceive the consumer as to the affiliation, connection or association of Sweet Petes

14 with Sugarfina, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval by Sugarfina of Sweet
15 Petes goods, services or commercial activities.
16 86. Sweet Petes actions constitute unfair competition and false
17 designation or origin in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
18 1125(a).
19 87. Sweet Petes knew of Sugarfinas Product Trade Dress when it
20 designed its products, and has refused to change its product or packaging design in
21 response to Sugarfinas request. Accordingly, Sweet Petes infringement has been
22 and continues to be intentional, willful and without regard to Sugarfinas Product
23 Trade Dress.
24 88. As a direct and proximate result of Sweet Petes unlawful acts and
25 practices, including those set forth above, Sweet Petes has caused, is causing, and
26 unless immediately enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause immediate and
27 irreparable harm to Sugarfina, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for
28 which it is entitled to injunctive relief.
- 29 -
1 89. Sugarfina is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
2 Sweet Pete has gained profits by virtue of its infringement of the Sugarfina Product
3 Trade Dress.
4 90. Sugarfina also has sustained damages as a direct and proximate
5 result of Sweet Petes infringement of the Sugarfina Product Trade Dress in an
6 amount to be proven at trial.
7 91. Because Sweet Petes actions have been willful, Sugarfina is entitled
8 to treble its actual damages or Sweet Petes profits, whichever is greater, and to an
9 award of costs, and, this being an exceptional case, reasonable attorneys fees
10 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).
11 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12 (Federal Trademark Infringement)

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 (15 U.S.C. 1114)

16 93. Sugarfina owns two federal trademark registrations for the
17 distinctive naming of several of its product lines, i.e., the Registered Trademarks.
18 94. The Sweet Petes line of products has infringed the Registered
19 Trademarks by using identical names in Sweet Petes products.
20 95. Sweet Petes use of its infringing product lineup is likely to cause
21 confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive the consumer as to the affiliation,
22 connection or association of Sweet Petes with Sugarfina, or as to the origin,
23 sponsorship, or approval by Sugarfina of Sweet Petes goods, services or
24 commercial activities.
25 96. Sweet Petes use of the infringing product lineup enables Sweet
26 Petes to benefit unfairly from Sugarfinas reputation and success, thereby giving
27 Sweet Petes infringing products sales and commercial value they would not have
28 otherwise.
- 30 -
1 97. Before Sweet Petes first use of the infringing product lineup, Sweet
2 Petes was aware of Sugarfinas business and had either actual notice and
3 knowledge, or constructive notice of, Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks.
4 98. Sweet Petes unauthorized use of the infringing product lineup is
5 likely, if not certain, to deceive or to cause confusion or mistake among consumers
6 as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of Sweet Petes products and/or to cause
7 confusion or mistake as to any affiliation, connection or association between
8 Sugarfina and Sweet Petes, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(a).
10 Sweet Petes infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks as described
11 herein has been and continues to be intentional, willful and without regard to
12 Sugarfinas rights.
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
14 Sweet Petes has gained profits by virtue of its infringement of Sugarfinas
15 Registered Trademarks.
16 101. Sugarfina will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Sweet
17 Petes infringement of Registered Trademarks insofar as Sugarfinas invaluable
18 goodwill is being eroded by continuing infringement.
19 102. Sugarfina has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the
20 loss of business reputation, customers, market position, confusion of potential
21 customers and goodwill flowing from Sweet Petes infringing activities. Pursuant
22 to 15 U.S.C. 1116, Sugarfina is entitled to an injunction against Sweet Petes
23 continuing infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks. Unless enjoined,
24 Sweet Petes will continue its infringing conduct.
25 103. Because Sweet Petes actions have been committed with intent to
26 damage Sugarfina and to confuse and deceive the public, Sugarfina is entitled to
27 treble its actual damages or Sweet Petes profits, whichever is greater, and to an
28
- 31 -
1 award of costs and, this being an exceptional case, reasonable attorneys fees
2 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) and 1117(b).
3 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4 (Common Law Trademark Infringement)
7 105. Sugarfina has prior rights in Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and
8 other unregistered marks, including CUBA LIBRE, PEACH BELLINI, FRUTTINI,
9 CANDY BENTO BOX, CANDY CUBE, and CANDY CONCIERGE.
10 106. Sweet Petes product lineup has infringed Sugarfinas Registered
11 Trademarks and unregistered common law marks by using identical or similar
12 names in Sweet Petes products.

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 107. Sweet Petes use of its infringing naming convention is likely to

14 cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive the consumer as to the
15 affiliation, connection or association of Sweet Petes with Sugarfina, or as to the
16 origin, sponsorship, or approval by Sugarfina of Sweet Petes goods, services or
17 commercial activities.
18 108. Sweet Petes use of the infringing product lineup enables Sweet
19 Petes to benefit unfairly from Sugarfinas reputation and success, thereby giving
20 Sweet Petes infringing products sales and commercial value they would not have
21 otherwise.
22 109. Prior to Sweet Petes first use of the infringing application icons,
23 Sweet Petes was aware of Sugarfinas business and had either actual notice and
24 knowledge, or constructive notice of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and other
25 unregistered marks.
26 110. Sweet Petes unauthorized use of the infringing product lineup is
27 likely, if not certain, to deceive or to cause confusion or mistake among consumers
28 as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of Sweet Petes product lineup and/or to
- 32 -
1 cause confusion or mistake as to any affiliation, connection or association between

2 Sugarfina and Sweet Petes, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(a).
4 Sweet Petes infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and unregistered
5 marks, as described herein, has been and continues to be intentional, willful and
6 without regard to Sugarfinas rights in its Registered Trademarks and unregistered
7 common law marks.
9 Sweet Petes has gained profits by virtue of its infringement of Sugarfinas
10 Registered Trademarks and unregistered common law marks.
11 113. Sugarfina will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Sweet
12 Petes infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and unregistered

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 common law marks insofar as Sugarfinas invaluable goodwill is being eroded by

14 Sweet Petes continuing infringement. Sugarfina has no adequate remedy at law to
15 compensate it for the loss of business reputation, customers, market position,
16 confusion of potential customers and goodwill flowing from the Sweet Petes
17 infringing activities.
18 114. Sugarfina is entitled to an injunction against Sweet Petes continuing
19 infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and unregistered common law
20 marks. Unless enjoined, Sweet Petes will continue its infringing conduct.
21 115. Because Sweet Petes actions have been committed with intent to
22 damage Sugarfina and to confuse and deceive the public, Sugarfina is entitled to
23 treble its actual damages or Sweet Petes profits, whichever is greater, and to an
24 award of costs and, this being an exceptional case, reasonable attorneys fees
25 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) and 1117(b).
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
- 33 -
1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 (Unfair Business Practices California Business and Professions Code
3 17200, et seq.)
6 117. The acts of Sweet Petes described above constitute fraudulent and
7 unlawful business practices as defined by California Business & Professions Code
8 17200, et seq.
9 118. Sugarfina has valid and protectable prior rights in the Sugarfina
10 Product Trade Dress, and the Registered Trademarks. The Sugarfina Product Trade
11 Dress identifies Sugarfina as the source of its candy products. The Sugarfina
12 Product Trade Dress is inherently distinctive, and, through Sugarfinas long use,
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 has come to be associated solely with Sugarfina as the source of the products on
14 which it is used.
15 119. Sweet Petes use of its infringing trade dress is likely to cause
16 confusion as to the source of Sweet Petes products and is likely to cause others to
17 be confused or mistaken into believing that there is a relationship between Sweet
18 Petes and Sugarfina or that Sweet Petes products are affiliated with or sponsored
19 by Sugarfina.
20 120. The above-described acts and practices by Sweet Petes are likely to
21 mislead or deceive the general public and therefore constitute fraudulent business
22 practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.
23 121. The above-described acts constitute unfair competition under Section
24 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and trademark and trade dress
25 infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, and are
26 therefore unlawful acts in violation of California Business & Professions Code
27 17200, et seq.
28
- 34 -
1 122. The above-described acts also constitute unlawful infringement of

2 Sugarfinas registered patent and copyright rights under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.
3 271, and the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 501, and are therefore unlawful acts in
4 violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.
5 123. Sweet Petes acted willfully and intentionally in designing its
6 infringing trade dress and product packaging, with full knowledge of Sugarfinas
7 prior rights in the distinctive Sugarfina Product Trade Dress, Registered
8 Trademarks, its common law trademarks, its patent rights, and its copyrights, and
9 with an intent to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive customers into believing
10 that there is an affiliation between Sweet Petes and Sugarfina or between Sweet
11 Petes products and Sugarfinas products.
12 124. The unlawful and fraudulent business practices of Sweet Petes

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 described above present a continuing threat to, and is meant to deceive members of,
14 the public in that Sweet Petes desires to promote its products by wrongfully
15 trading on the goodwill of the Sugarfina Product Trade Dress, the Registered
16 Trademarks, its common law trademarks, its patent rights, and its copyrights.
17 125. As a direct and proximate result of these acts, Sweet Petes has
18 received, and will continue to profit from, the strength of the Sugarfina Product
19 Trade Dress, the Registered Marks, Sugarfinas common law trademarks, its patent
20 rights, and its copyrights.
21 126. As a direct and proximate result of Sweet Petes wrongful conduct,
22 Sugarfina has been injured in fact and has lost money and profits, and such harm
23 will continue unless Sweet Petes acts are enjoined by the Court.
24 127. Sugarfina has no adequate remedy at law for Sweet Petes continuing
25 violation of Sugarfinas rights.
26 128. Sweet Petes should be required to restore to Sugarfina any and all
27 profits earned as a result of their unlawful and fraudulent actions, or provide
28 Sugarfina with any other restitutionary relief as the Court deems appropriate.
- 35 -
1 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 (Unjust Enrichment)
5 130. As a result of the conduct alleged herein, Sweet Petes has been
6 unjustly enriched to Sugarfinas detriment. Sugarfina seeks a worldwide accounting
7 and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains and profits resulting from Sweet Petes
8 inequitable activities.
9 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10 (Infringement of the 641 Patent)

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 132. Sweet Petes has infringed and continues to infringe the 641 Patent
14 by using, selling and/or offering to sell in the United States, and/or importing into
15 the United States one or more of Sweet Petes infringing products identified in this
16 Complaint, which embody the design covered by the 641 Patent.
17 133. On information and belief, Sweet Petes infringement of the 641
18 Patent has taken place with full knowledge of the patent and is willful, deliberate,
19 and intentional, and therefore gives rise to an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C.
20 285.
21 134. Sweet Petes infringement of one or more claims of the 641 Patent
22 has injured Sugarfina, the precise amount of which cannot be ascertained at this
23 time. Sugarfina is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Sweet
24 Petes infringement, which in no event can be less than a reasonable royalty.
25 135. Sweet Petes has caused Sugarfina substantial damages and
26 irreparable injury by its infringement of one or more claims of the 641 Patent, for
27 which there is no adequate remedy at law. Sugarfina will continue to suffer
28 damages and irreparable injury unless and until Sweet Petes infringement is
- 36 -
1 enjoined by this Court.

2 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
3 (Copyright Infringement)
6 137. Sugarfina is the owner of exclusive rights under copyright with
7 respect to the three-piece designer candy box and the designer bento box, Reg. Nos.
8 VA0001963482 and VA0001963483.
9 138. Sugarfina has never granted to Sweet Petes any license to make or
10 market any unauthorized copies of Sugarfinas products or registered works.
11 139. By means of the actions complained of herein, Sweet Petes has
12 infringed and will continue to infringe Sugarfinas copyright in and relating to its
I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 registered works by creating, reproducing, distributing, selling, and/or offering for

14 sale infringing products and product packaging containing strikingly similar
15 reproductions of the registered works without authorization from Sugarfina.
16 140. Sugarfina is entitled to an injunction restraining Sweet Petes, and all
17 persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in further acts in violation of the
18 copyright laws.
19 141. Sugarfina is further entitled to recover from Sweet Petes the
20 damages Sugarfina has sustained, and will sustain, as a result of Sweet Petes
21 wrongful acts in an amount to be proven at trial. Sugarfina is further entitled to
22 recover from Sweet Petes any gains, profits, and advantages Sweet Petes has
23 obtained as a result of its wrongful acts.
24 142. Sugarfina is also entitled to damages, pursuant to the Copyright Act
25 of 1976, 16 17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq., for Sweet Petes willful and continued
26 infringement of the registered works and attorneys fees.
27 ///
28 ///
- 37 -
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Sugarfina prays for relief, as follows:
3 1. A judgment that Defendants have infringed one or more claims of
4 Sugarfinas asserted patent;
5 2. An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining
6 Defendants and their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, affiliates,
7 attorneys, and all others acting in privity or in concert with them, and their
8 parents, subsidiaries, divisions, successors and assigns, from further acts of
9 infringement of Sugarfinas asserted patent;
10 3. A judgment awarding Sugarfina all damages adequate to
11 compensate for Defendants infringement of Sugarfinas asserted patent, and in
12 no event less than a reasonable royalty for Defendants acts of infringement,

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate

14 permitted by law;
15 4. A judgment awarding Sugarfina all damages, including treble
16 damages, based on any infringement found to be willful, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
17 284, together with prejudgment interest;
18 5. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants and
19 their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, affiliates, attorneys, and all
20 others acting in privity or in concert with them, and their parents, subsidiaries,
21 divisions, successors and assigns, from directly or indirectly infringing the
22 Sugarfina Product Trade Dress, Registered Trademarks, unregistered common law
23 trademarks, or using any other product or packaging design or designations similar
24 to or likely to cause confusion with the Sugarfina Product Trade Dress, Registered
25 Trademarks, and unregistered common law trademarks; from passing off Sweet
26 Petes products as being associated with and or sponsored or affiliated with
27 Sugarfina; from committing any other unfair business practices directed toward
28 obtaining for themselves the business and customers of Sugarfina; and from
- 38 -
1 committing any other unfair business practices directed toward devaluing or

2 diminishing the brand or business of Sugarfina.
3 6. Actual damages suffered by Sugarfina as a result of Defendants
4 unlawful conduct, in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as prejudgment
5 interest as authorized by law;
6 7. Reasonable funds for future corrective advertising;
7 8. An accounting of Defendants profits pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117;
8 9. A judgment trebling any damages award pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
9 1117;
10 10. Punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code 3294;
11 11. Restitutionary relief against Defendants and in favor of Sugarfina,
12 including disgorgement of wrongfully obtained profits and any other appropriate

I R V I N E , C A 92614-2545
5 PAR K PLA ZA
S U I T E 1400
13 relief;
14 12. Costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees, including, but not limited
15 to, a finding that this case is exceptional and awarding attorneys fees and costs
16 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; and
17 13. Any other remedy to which Sugarfina may be entitled, including all
18 remedies provided for in 15 U.S.C. 1117, Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 17200, et
19 seq., 17500, et seq., and under any other California law.
20
Dated: June 15, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
21
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
22
23 By: /s/ Jennifer Trusso Salinas
Jennifer T. Salinas
24 Andr De La Cruz
Jenny Kim
25
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26 SUGARFINA, INC.
27
28
- 39 -
Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 42 Page ID #:41
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
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 02/28/2018)
Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

Serial Number: 87264489
Filing Date: 12/11/2016
The table below presents the data as entered.
Input Field Entered

SERIAL NUMBER 87264489
MARK INFORMATION
*MARK CANDY CUBE
STANDARD CHARACTERS YES
USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE YES
LITERAL ELEMENT CANDY CUBE
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 Sugarfina, LLC
*STREET 3915 W. 102nd Street
*CITY Inglewood
*STATE
(Required for U.S. applicants)
California
*COUNTRY United States

*ZIP/POSTAL CODE
(Required for U.S. applicants)
90303
WEBSITE ADDRESS www.sugarfina.com

LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION
TYPE limited liability company
STATE/COUNTRY WHERE LEGALLY ORGANIZED Delaware
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION
INTERNATIONAL CLASS
*IDENTIFICATION Candy; chocolates

FILING BASIS SECTION 1(b)
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
NAME Paul Chancellor
ATTORNEY DOCKET NUMBER OTM-16005
FIRM NAME Ocean Law
STREET 3463 Red Bluff Court
CITY Simi Valley

STATE California
COUNTRY United States
ZIP/POSTAL CODE 93063
PHONE 805.368.4586
FAX 805.299.4919
EMAIL ADDRESS pdc@oceanlawgroup.com
AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes
CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
NAME Paul Chancellor
FIRM NAME Ocean Law
STREET 3463 Red Bluff Court
CITY Simi Valley
STATE California
COUNTRY United States
ZIP/POSTAL CODE 93063
PHONE 805.368.4586
FAX 805.299.4919
*EMAIL ADDRESS pdc@oceanlawgroup.com
*AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes
FEE INFORMATION
APPLICATION FILING OPTION TEAS RF
NUMBER OF CLASSES 1
FEE PER CLASS 275
*TOTAL FEE DUE 275
*TOTAL FEE PAID 275
SIGNATURE INFORMATION
SIGNATURE /paul d. chancellor/
SIGNATORY'S NAME Paul D. Chancellor
SIGNATORY'S POSITION Attorney of Record, CA bar member
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER 805.368.4586
DATE SIGNED 12/11/2016
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 02/28/2018)
Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

Filing Date: 12/11/2016
To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
MARK: CANDY CUBE (Standard Characters, see mark)
The literal element of the mark consists of CANDY CUBE.
The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color.
The applicant, Sugarfina, LLC, a limited liability company legally organized under the laws of Delaware, having an address of
3915 W. 102nd Street
Inglewood, California 90303
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:
International Class _______: Candy; chocolates

Intent to Use: The applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified
goods/services.
For informational purposes only, applicant's website address is: www.sugarfina.com
The applicant's current Attorney Information:

Paul Chancellor of Ocean Law 3463 Red Bluff Court
Simi Valley, California 93063
United States
805.368.4586(phone)
805.299.4919(fax)
pdc@oceanlawgroup.com (authorized)
The attorney docket/reference number is OTM-16005.
The applicant's current Correspondence Information:
Paul Chancellor
Ocean Law
3463 Red Bluff Court
Simi Valley, California 93063
805.368.4586(phone)
805.299.4919(fax)
pdc@oceanlawgroup.com (authorized)
E-mail Authorization: I authorize the USPTO to send e-mail correspondence concerning the application to the applicant or applicant's attorney
at the e-mail address provided above. I understand that a valid e-mail 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 an additional processing fee of $50 per international class of goods/services.
A fee payment in the amount of $275 has been submitted with the application, representing payment for 1 class(es).
Declaration
The signatory believes that: if the applicant is filing the application under 15 U.S.C. 1051(a), the applicant is the owner of the
trademark/service mark sought to be registered; the applicant is using the mark 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/or if the applicant filed
an application under 15 U.S.C. 1051(b), 1126(d), and/or 1126(e), the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce; the applicant has a
bona fide intention, and is entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the application. The signatory
believes that 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. 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 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: /paul d. chancellor/ Date: 12/11/2016

Signatory's Name: Paul D. Chancellor
Signatory's Position: Attorney of Record, CA bar member
RAM Sale Number: 87264489
RAM Accounting Date: 12/12/2016

Internet Transmission Date: Sun Dec 11 10:08:12 EST 2016
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/BAS-XXX.XXX.XX.X-20161211100812573
551-87264489-5707017e2f0d71eaa62f194f6c3
93fac71acc0783e5bfa195c287aa73a5425bebe-
CC-7401-20161211095421160871
EXHIBIT 5
US00D755641S
(12) United States Design Patent do Patent No.: US D755,641 S

ONeill (45) Date of Patent: ::: May 10, 2016
(54) PACKAGING (56) References Cited
(71) Applicant: Rosie Colleen ONeill, Los Angeles, CA |U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
(US) 3,126,093 A * 3/1964 Bradley et al. ................ 206/752
D292.876 S + 11/1987 Grunhut ......... ... D9/721
(72) Inventor: Rosie Colleen ONeill, Los Angeles, CA D292.877 S + 11/1987 Grunhut ..... ... D9/721
(US) D335,819 S + 5/1993 Campbell ... D9/721
6,533,166 B1* 3/2003 Kaiss ...... ... 232/1 D
- D511,681 S + 1 1/2005 Cogley et al. ...... ... D9/416
(73) Assignee: Sugarfina, LLC, Inglewood, CA (US) D643,306 S + 8/2011 Martinez et al. ... ... D9/721
D669,352 S + 10/2012 Paslawski .......... ... D9/423
(**) Term: 14 Years ! ; ; ; r
5 ... .
TalllS ............................
(21) Appl. No. 29/499,564 * cited by examiner

(22) Filed: Aug. 15, 2014 Primary Examiner Derrick Holland
51) LOC (10) Cl. ................................................ 09-03
Assistant Examiner Lauren Calve
(51) (10) (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm Paul D. Chancellor, Ocean
(52) ll. D9/721 Law
(58) Field of Classification Search ornamental design , ing, as shown and
USPC .......... D9/414, 415, 420, 426,432, 433, 715, described.
9. packaging,
D9/721, 737, 756, 759, 761; D3/201, 205,
D3/206, 273, 274, 283, 298,290: 206/214, DESCRIPTION
206/215, 224, 318, 424, 425, 515, 518, 525,
206/575, 751756, 758, 763, 765; 229/103, FIG. 1 is an exploded perspective view of a packaging show
229/116.1, 120.02, 120.06, 120.07, 120.33, ing my new design;
229/124, 125.01, 125,08, 125.125 FIG. 2 is a perspective view thereof, shown without the insert
CPC ... B65D 21/0233; B65D 5/68; B65D 5/6697: and packaging tray for clarity of illustration;
B65D 5/0245; B65D 5/5021; B65D 5/5213; FIG. 3 is a front view thereof;
B65D 5/42. B65D 5/2057; B65D 5/72; FIG. 4 is a rear view thereof;
B65D 5/566; B65D 5/643; B65D 5/50: FIG. 5 is top view thereof; and,
FIG. 6 is a side view thereof.
B65D 5/48; B65D 5/66; B65D 1/36; B65D The broken lines shown represent unclaimed subject matter
85/00; B65D 85/324; B65D 85/60, B65D and form no part of the claimed design. The shade lines shown
2543/00194; B65D 2543/00648; B65D 71/70; represent surface shading and not surface ornamentation.
B65D 77/02; B65D 77/0433; B65D 77/24
See application file for complete search history. 1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets
U.S. Patent May 10, 2016 Sheet 1 of 4 US D755,641 S

U.S. Patent May 10, 2016 Sheet 2 of 4

U.S. Patent May 10, 2016 Sheet 4 of 4
FIG 5
FIG. 6
\ \ \
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 7
EXHIBIT 8
(, %%) '%) %;(

ACCUSED PRODUCTS
1. Candy Bento Boxes

2. Cuba Libre Cocktail
3. Ooh So Organic Peach Bellini

4. Candy Cube
5. Candy Concierge
6. +-6359 7 '65/ 9 .87 *734 2 (9 2 -6134 -;7 ) 6-/ 0 $ 6077


Sugarfina v. Sweet Pete&#39;s - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sugarfina v. Sweet Pete&#39;s - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:17-cv-04456 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 40 Page ID #:1

1 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

12 SUGARFINA, INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:17-cv-4456

13 JURY TRIAL DEMAND

1 Plaintiff Sugarfina, Inc. (Sugarfina) complains and alleges as follows

13 Sugarfina redefining confectioneries and the associated experience, including

1 luxury boutique candy. Although international expansion will continue, Sugarfina

12 gourmet small-portion tasting experience. Because of its innovative packaging and

13 numerous design patents, trademark registrations, and copyright registrations,

1 25. In addition, Sugarfinas products have received unsolicited comment

12 Store Age Breakout Retailer award.

12 38. CANDY CUBEattached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy

13 of U.S. Application No. 87/264,489. Sugarfina began using CANDY CUBE on

1 i.e., with the same meaning.

1 Sweet Petes Infringing Products

12 58. Thus, without investing any of the resources or innovation required

13 in developing a strong brand identity and intellectual property portfolio, Sweet

1 Infringement of Sugarfinas Patent

13 67. In 2014, Sugarfina filed a design patent application covering its

1 73. Sweet Petes began marketing a copycat product in at least 2015, a

13 74. An ordinary observer of Sweet Petes candy packaging and

13 on the boxes and labels.

1 83. In addition, based on extensive and consistent advertising, promotion

12 Sugarfina Trade Dress is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to

13 deceive the consumer as to the affiliation, connection or association of Sweet Petes

12 (Federal Trademark Infringement)

13 (15 U.S.C. 1114)

12 names in Sweet Petes products.

13 107. Sweet Petes use of its infringing naming convention is likely to

1 cause confusion or mistake as to any affiliation, connection or association between

12 Petes infringement of Sugarfinas Registered Trademarks and unregistered

13 common law marks insofar as Sugarfinas invaluable goodwill is being eroded by

1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 122. The above-described acts also constitute unlawful infringement of

12 124. The unlawful and fraudulent business practices of Sweet Petes

1 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12 Complaint as though set forth in full.

1 enjoined by this Court.

13 registered works by creating, reproducing, distributing, selling, and/or offering for

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12 no event less than a reasonable royalty for Defendants acts of infringement,

13 including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate

1 committing any other unfair business practices directed toward devaluing or

12 including disgorgement of wrongfully obtained profits and any other appropriate

Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

The table below presents the data as entered.

Input Field Entered

*COUNTRY United States

WEBSITE ADDRESS www.sugarfina.com

*IDENTIFICATION Candy; chocolates

CITY Simi Valley

Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

Serial Number: 87264489

International Class _______: Candy; chocolates

For informational purposes only, applicant's website address is: www.sugarfina.com

The applicant's current Attorney Information:

Signature: /paul d. chancellor/ Date: 12/11/2016

Serial Number: 87264489

(12) United States Design Patent do Patent No.: US D755,641 S

(21) Appl. No. 29/499,564 * cited by examiner

U.S. Patent May 10, 2016 Sheet 1 of 4 US D755,641 S

U.S. Patent May 10, 2016 Sheet 2 of 4

U.S. Patent May 10, 2016 Sheet 4 of 4

(, %%) '%) %;(

Sugarfina v. Sweet Pete's - Complaint

Sugarfina v. Sweet Pete's - Complaint