Complaint - Pitonyak v. Brandt

8/7/2019 Complaint - Pitonyak v. Brandt

1/13

FILEDus DISTRICT CCURTEASTERN DiSTRICT ARK."NJUL 07 2010

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R ~ A M ~ ~ C K , C LFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA y' WESTERN DIVISION . ~ . -

Pitonyak Machinery Corporat ion,P l a i n t i f f , CIVIL ACTION

No. \0 t f , ) 1 ~ j\'(\\Y\Brandt I n d u s t r i e s Ltd. andBrandt Agr icu l tu ra l Products Ltd . INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

Defendants .T h I I _ M e i g N d l l > ~ and toMagi__ Judge

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGESFOR FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. 1125(a}} i and,

TRADEMARK UNFAIR COMPETITION (COMMON LAW)

P l a i n t i f f , Pitonyak Machinery Corporat ion , ("PMC"), byi t s a t to rneys , a l l eges as fo l lows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE1. This i s an ac t ion seeking in junc t ive r e l i e f and

damages for :(1) t rademark fa l se des igna t ion of or ig in in v io la t ion

of th e Trademark Act of th e United S ta t e s , 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) iand, (2) u n f a i r compet i t ion i n v io la t ion of the common law.

2. This Cour t has j u r i s d i c t i on over th e sub jec tmat te r of t h i s ac t ion pursuan t to 15 U.S.C. 1121 (Lanham Act) ,

- 1


2/13

28 U.S.C. 1331 ( federa l quest ion) and 1338(a) , in t ha t th i scase a r i ses under the Trademark Laws of the United Sta tes , 15U.S.C. 1051 e t seq.

3. Venue i s proper in t h i s d i s t r i c t pursuant to 28U.S.C. 1391(d), in t ha t Defendants , Brandt Indus t r i e s , Ltd.("BIL") and Brandt Agr icu l tu ra l Products Ltd. ("BAPL") area l iens .

THE PARTIES

4. Pla in t i f f , PMC, i s and was a t a l l r e levan t t imes

a corpora t ion duly organized under the laws of the Sta te ofArkansas, loca ted and doing business a t 1220 East Durkee Stree t ,C a r l i s l e , Arkansas, 72024.

5. PMC's business inc ludes , i n t e r a l i a , theproduct ion and sa le of a gr i c u l tu r a l machinery, and o ther goodsand se rv ices re la ted to a gr i c u l tu r a l machinery.

6. Upon informat ion and be l i e f , Defendant , BIL, i sand was a t a l l r e levan t t imes a corpora t ion duly organized underthe laws of Saskatchewan, Canada, loca ted and doing business a t13 th Avenue & Pinkie Road, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4P 3Al.

7. Upon informat ion and be l i e f , Defendant , BAPL, i sand was a t a l l r e levan t t imes a corpora t ion duly organized underthe laws of Saskatchewan, Canada, loca ted and doing business a t13 th Avenue & Pinkie Road, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4P 3Al.

- 2

Case 1:11-cv-00233-TWP-DML Document 1 Filed 07/07/10 Page 2 o


3/13


4/13

12. PMC i s th e owner of the mark, BRANDT, fo r use inconnect ion with var ious types of a gr i c u l tu r a l machinery,inc lud ing but not l imi ted to gra in c a r t s .

13. PMC purchased the BRANDT mark from Brandt Mfg.Co., Inc . and Brandt In c . , as p a r t of an a s se t purchase and sa leagreement on October 24, 2002.

14. On December 4, 2002, PMC f i l ed an app l ica t ionwith the U.S. Paten t and Trademark Off ice to r e g i s t e r the mark,BRANDT, fo r a g r i c u l t u ra l machines, namely, l and l eve le rs , loaderfo rks fo r a g r i c u l t u ra l t r a c to r s , u t i l i t y land l e v e l e r s , boxsc rape rs , heavy duty s tubble ro l l e r s , hydrau l i c fo ld ing f i e l dro l l e r s , hipper ro l l e r s , a g r i c u l t u ra l t rac tor- towed non motorized gra in c a r t s , quick hi t ches fo r t r a c to r s and personnelwork pla t fo rms fo r f o r k l i f t s . PMC's app l ica t ion to r e g i s t e r th eBRANDT mark has been suspended pending th e d i spos i t ion of anapp l ica t ion f i l ed by BIL, on grounds t h a t the re may be al ike l ihood of confus ion between BIL's app l ica t ion to r eg i s t e rth e BRANDT mark and PMC's app l ica t ion to r e g i s t e r th e BRANDTmark. BIL's app l ica t ion was f i l e d subsequent to PMC'sapp l ica t ion , however, BIL was given a p r i o r i t y date p r i o r toPMC's f i l i ng date pursuant to Sect ion 44(d) of th e Trademark Act15 U.S.C. 1126(d) .

- 4



5/13

15. Cont inuously , s ince a t l e a s t as ear ly as 1945,PMC and i t s predecesso rs - in - in te res t have used th e BRANDT markto i d e n t i fy a g r i c u l t u ra l machinery and r e l a t e d goods andse rv ices and to d i s t ingu ish them from those made and sold byo ther s , by, among other th ings , prominent ly di sp lay ing the markon th e goods, and on point -of-purchase d i sp lays as soc ia tedtherewi th . In add i t ion , PMC and i t s predecesso rs - in - in te res thave prominent ly displayed the mark on s to re f ron t s ,l e t t e r h ead s , b i l l s , d i r e c t mail adver t i s ing , radio andt e l e v i s i o n adver t i s ing , te lephone d i r e c to r i e s , i n t e rne tadver t i s ing , websi tes and in p e r io d i ca l s d i s t r i bu t e d throughoutthe United Sta tes .

16. As a r e s u l t of PMC's and i t s predecessors - in i n t e r e s t ' s subs tan t i a l t ime and e f f o r t s in using and promotingi t s BRANDT mark, i t s mark has come to enjoy widespread andfavorable recogni t ion among the re l evan t t r ade as des igna t ingor ig in in PMC and rep re sen t s a business r epu ta t ion and goodwil lof s i g n i f i c a n t value to PMC.

17. By v i r tue of the subs tan t i a l s a l e s and promotionof PMC's goods and se rv ices , and the t rademark r i g h t s achievedthrough the subs tan t i a l use and promotion of i t s BRANDT mark,PMC has the exc lus ive r i gh t to use i t s mark fo r i t s goods andse rv ices .

- 5



6/13

DEFENDANTS' INFRINGING ACTIVITIES

18. Notwithstanding PMC's r i gh t s in i t s BRANDT mark,Defendants have undertaken a concer ted plan and course ofconduct designed to t r ade upon PMC's r epu ta t ion and good w i l l byappropr ia t ing and in f r ing ing PMC's mark by, i n t e r a l i a , ( i)causing publ ic confusion as to th e source, sponsorship o ra f f i l i a t i o n of Defendants ' goods and se rv ices , and ( i i ) causingin ju ry to PMC's business repu ta t ion .

19. Subsequent to PMC's and /or i t s predecessors - in i n t e r e s t ' s use of i t s BRANDT mark on a g r i c u l t u ra l machinery andr e l a t e d goods and se rv ices , Defendants began using the mark,BRANDT, in connect ion with a g r i c u l t u ra l machinery and r e l a t e dgoods and se rv ices .

20. Defendants are in f r ing ing PMC's BRANDT mark ini n t e r s t a t e commerce by var ious ac t s , inc lud ing , bu t no t l imi tedto the use of PMC's mark d i r e c t ly on a g r i c u l t u ra l machinerYi theuse of PMC's mark as a p a r t of an adver t i s ing campaigni th e useof PMC's mark on BIL 's websi te to adver t i s e a g r i c u l t u ra lmachinery and othe r re l a t ed goods and se rv ices i and the use ofPMC's mark a t U.S. tradeshows d i rec ted to the a g r i c u l t u ra lmarket . These uses of PMC's BRANDT mark by Defendants arewithout permiss ion o r au thor i ty of PMC and are l i ke ly to causeconfusion, to cause mistake and to deceive , to the i r r ep a r ab l edamage of PMC.

- 6



7/13

21. On February 6, 2003 Defendant , BIL, f i l e d anapp l ica t ion with the u.s. Paten t and Trademark Off ice fo rr e g i s t r a t i on of the mark, BRANDT, in connect ion with , i n t e ral ia , gra in handl ing equipment, namely, augers, conveyors andgra in vacuums; spraying equipment, namely, pole - type and t h reep o i n t sprayers ; l i g h t duty t i l l a g e equipment, namely, harrows;l ives tock feeding and process ing equipment, namely, baleprocessors ; and custom manufacture and fab r i ca t ion of machines.BIL's app l ica t ion was given a p r i o r i t y date o f August 6, 2002,pursuan t to Sect ion 44(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1126 (d) .

22. On July 12, 2006, PMC f i l ed an oppos i t ion toBIL's app l ica t ion fo r r e g i s t r a t i on of th e BRANDT mark. Duringth e oppos i t ion proceeding , PMC submit ted evidence of PMC's useof the mark, BRANDT, in connect ion wi th a gr i c u l tu r a l machinery,inc lud ing gra in c a r t s . BIL's a t to rney a t tended th e t e s t imonia ldepos i t ion a t which PMC submit ted such evidence.

23. On November 16, 2009, BIL, through t h e i ra t to rney , submit ted a br i e f in connect ion wi th the oppos i t ionproceeding. In t h i s b r i e f , BIL s t a t ed , " [BIL] does not con te s t[PMC's] cla im t h a t i t s predecesso rs - in - in te res t used [PMC's]BRANDT mark in connect ion wi th a g r i c u l t u ra l equipment pr io r to[BIL's] f i r s t use of i t s BRANDT mark in the United Sta tes inconnect ion wi th any goods and se rv ices . " BIL f u r th e r s t a t e d ,

- 7



8/13

"[BlL] a l so does no t con te s t the claim t ha t [BlL] i s noten t i t l ed to r e g i s t r a t i on of i t s BRANDT mark in connect ion withth e goods r e c i t e d in Class 7 in i t s app l ica t ion , ..."

24. Upon informat ion and be l i e f , subsequent toprepar ing and f i l i ng t h i s b r i e f , Defendants expanded Defendants 'goods to include the manufacture and sa le of gra in ca r t s in theUnited S ta t e s .

25. Defendants began of fe r ing fo r sa le and s e l l i nggra in c a r t s under the BRANDT mark with ac tua l knowledge andevidence of PMC's pr i o r i t y in i t s BRANDT mark fo r a g r i c u l t u ra lmachinery and th e use of i t s BRANDT mark on gra in c a r t s in theUnited Sta tes .

26. Defendants ' appropr i a t ion and use of PMC's BRANDTmark i s w i l l f u l and i n t en t iona l , and i s in tended to causeconfus ion , to cause mistake and to deceive.

27. Upon informat ion and b e l i e f , Defendants ' ac t s offa l se des igna t ion of or ig in and u n f a i r compet i t ion have beenw i l l fu l and i n t en t i o n a l and committed with an i n t e n t to causeconfus ion , to cause mistake, or to deceive .

28. PMC has reques ted Defendants to cease and de s i s tfrom t h e i r a c t s of t rademark infr ingement , fa l se des igna t ion ofo r i g i n and u n f a i r competi t ion, pa r t i c u l a r ly in connect ion withgra in c a r t s , but Defendants have not subs tan t ive ly responded toPMC's correspondence o r given any ind ica t ion t h a t Defendants

- 8



9/13

in tend to cease Defendants ' ac t s of t rademark in f r ingement ,fa l se des igna t ion of or ig in and unfa i r compet i t ion .

29. Defendants ac t ions have caused ac tu a l confusionin consumers in the na tu re o f te lephone ca l l s , emai l s andpersona l i nqu i r i e s .

COUNT ONEFALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)

30. PMC re -a l l eges Paragraphs 1 through 27, as i ffu l l y s e t fo r th he re in .

31. Defendants ' use of the BRANDT mark in connect ionwith the sa le and promotion of i t s goods and se rv icescons t i tu t es the use in commerce of words, te rms, names o rsymbols, and a fa l se des igna t ion of or ig in and fa l se andmisleading descr ip t ion and r ep resen ta t ion t h a t i s l i ke ly tocause confus ion , to cause mistake, and to deceive as to th ea f f i l i a t i o n , connect ion , o r as soc ia t ion of Defendants with PMCand as to th e o r ig in , sponsorship and approval of Defendants 'goods and se rv ice s in v i o l a t i o n of sec t ion 43(a) of theTrademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) .

32. Said ac t s of Defendants have caused and w i l lcause g r ea t and i r r ep a r ab l e i n ju r y to PMC and, unless such ac t sare res t ra ined by th e Court , sa id ac t s w i l l cont inue and PMCw i l l continue to su f f e r g r ea t and i r reparab le i n ju r y .

33. PMC has no adequate remedy a t law.

- 9



10/13

COUNT TWOCOMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION

34. PMC r e - a l l eg es Paragraphs 1 through 31, as i ffu l ly se t fo r th here in .

35. Defendants ' ac t s cons t i tu t e un fa i r compet i t ionand t rademark infr ingement of PMC's common law r i g h t s in i t sBRANDT mark.

36. PMC's BRANDT mark has acquired d i s t inc t iveness asa r e s u l t of i t s subs tan t i a l ly exc lus ive and cont inuous use ofthe mark in i n t e r s t a t e commerce s ince a t l e a s t as ear ly as 1945.

Cont inuously s ince a t l e a s t 1945, PMC and i t s predecessors - in i n t e re s t have used the mark, BRANDT, to i den t i fy i t s goods andse rv ice s and to d i s t ingu ish them from those made, of fe red andso ld by o ther s . PMC and i t s predecesso rs - in - in te res t haveex tens ive ly promoted i t s BRANDT mark by, i n t e r a l ia , prominent lydisplaying i t s BRANDT mark on i t s goods, and on di sp laysassoc ia t ed with i t s goods. In add i t ion , PMC and i t spredecesso rs - in - in te res t have prominent ly disp layed i t s BRANDTmark on s to re f ron t s , l e t t e rheads , b i l l s , d i r e c t mailadver t i s ing , radio and t e l ev i s ion adver t i s ing , te lephoned i r e c to r i e s , per iod ica l s d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the UnitedSta tes , and on the i n t e rn e t . Said goods and adver t i s ing havebeen d i s t r i b u t e d in the t r ade areas where Defendants a re doingbusiness . As a r e s u l t of sa id sa les and adver t i s ing by PMCunder i t s BRANDT mark, the mark has developed and now has a

- 10



11/13

secondary and d i s t i nc t ive t rademark meaning to purchasers inDefendants ' t r ade a rea s . PMC's BRANDT mark has come to ind ica teto purchasers a meaning of a g r i c u l t u ra l machinery and r e l a t e dgoods and se rv ice s o r ig in a t i n g only wi th PMC. As a r e s u l t ofsa id as soc ia t ion by purchasers , Defendants ' use of the BRANDTmark i s l i ke ly to cause confusion in purchasers .

37. Defendants ' ac t s cons t i tu t e inf r ingement of PMC'sBRANDT mark, and u n f a i r compet i t ion with PMC, in v io la t ion ofPMC's r i g h t s under the common law.

38. Said ac t s of Defendants have caused and w i l lcause grea t and i r r eparab le in ju ry to PMC and, unless such ac t sa re res t ra ined by the Court , sa id ac t s w i l l con t inue and PMCw i l l continue to su f f e r g r ea t and i r r eparab le in ju ry .

39. PMC has no adequate remedy a t law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PMC prays:40. That t h i s Cour t gran t a pre l iminary and permanent

in junc t ion pursuan t to the powers gran ted it under 15 U.S.C. 1116, enjoin ing and r e s t r a i n i n g Defendants , t h e i r agen t s ,se rvan t s , employees and s u b s id i a r i e s from d i r e c t ly o r i nd i r e c t lyusing the name BRANDT o r any othe r mark, word o r name s imi l a r toPMC's BRANDT mark which i s l i ke ly to cause confus ion , mis take,or to deceive .

- 11



12/13

41. That t h i s Cour t gran t an in junc t ion , enjo in ingand res t ra in ing Defendants ' and t h e i r agen t s , se rvan t s andsubs id ia r i e s from using any f a l s e des igna t ion of or ig in o r f a l s edescr ip t ion o r fa l se r ep resen ta t ion in connect ion with theadver t i s ing , promotion o r of fe r ing of a gr i c u l tu r a l machinery o rr e l a t e d goods and se rv ice s and from doing any o ther a c t o r th ingca lcu la ted o r l i ke ly (i) to cause confusion, to cause mistake o rto deceive th e publ ic in to the be l i e f t h a t Defendants o rDefendants ' goods and se rv ice s a re PMC o r PMC's goods o rse rv ices , o r come from or a re a f f i l i a t e d with PMC, o r sponsoredo r approved by PMC, o r come from th e same source as PMC o r PMC'sgoods and se rv ices , o r ( i i ) to in ju re the bus iness r epu ta t ion ofPMC.

42. That Defendants be requi red to account to PMC fo rany and a l l p r o f i t s der ived by Defendants from the sa le of i t sa gr i c u l tu r a l machinery and r e l a t e d goods and se rv ices , includinggra in ca r t s , and fo r a l l damages sus t a ined by PMC by reason ofs a id ac t s of in f r ingement and unfa i r compet i t ion complained ofhere in , pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117.

43. That the cos t s of t h i s ac t ion be awarded to PMC,pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117.

44. That PMC be awarded i t s reasonable a t to rneysfees , pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(b) .

- 12



13/13

45. That the Court gran t such othe r and f u r the rr e l i e f as it sha l l deem j u s t and proper .

DOVER DIXON HORNE PLLC425 West Capi to l , Sui te 3700Li t t l e Rock, Arkansas 72201501-375-9151501-375-6484 ( facsimi le)

OF COUNSEL:

Daniel T. EarleJames E. Shles ingerAtto rneys fo r P l a i n t i f fSHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP5845 Richmond Highway, Sui te 41 5Alexandria , Virg in ia 22303Phone: (703 ) 6 84 - 5600Fax: (703) 836 - [email protected]@sagllp.com

- 13


Documents

Complaint - Pitonyak v. Brandt