Vaughn Boyd and SWI-De LLC D:B:A Drew Estate v. Deadwood Tobacco Company

Case 1:23-cv-22213-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2023 Page 1 of 26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.: ______________________
VAUGHN BOYD and

SWI-DE, LLC D/B/A DREW ESTATE,
Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
DEADWOOD TOBACCO COMPANY a/k/a

DEADWOOD TOBACCO COMPANY
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Vaughn Boyd (“Boyd”) and SWI-DE, LLC d/b/a Drew Estate (“Drew Estate”)
bring this action against Defendant Deadwood Tobacco Company a/k/a Deadwood Tobacco
Company Corporation (“DTC”) for federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition and
false designation of origin, and cancellation of Defendant’s federal trademark registrations under
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., and declaratory judgments in connection with allegations
of tortious interference with contract and of breach of contract made by Defendant, and allege as
follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Boyd is an individual and citizen of South Dakota, residing in Whitewood,
South Dakota 57793.
1
70939350;3
2. Plaintiff Drew Estate is a limited liability company organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal address of 12415 SW 136th Avenue, Suite 7,
Miami, Florida 33186.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant DTC is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of South Dakota with an address at Box 524, 715 Main St.,
Deadwood, South Dakota 57732.
4. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
1338(a) because this action involves claims for federal trademark infringement and federal unfair
competition under the Federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq. This court has supplemental
jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) because the claims are
so related to the Lanham Act claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.
5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because: (a) Defendant has
committed, and continues to commit, acts of trademark infringement and unfair competition in this
judicial district, and (b) Defendant has purposefully directed that conduct at Plaintiff Drew Estate
in this judicial district.
6. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because Defendant has
committed acts of infringement and/or unfair competition complained of here in this judicial
district.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiffs’ Trademark Rights
7. Plaintiff Drew Estate was founded in 1996 by Jonathan Drew and Marvin Samel in
New York, New York, and is one of the largest premium cigar manufacturers in the world. Since
2007, it has owned and operated the largest premium cigar factory in Nicaragua and one of the
2
70939350;3
five largest premium cigar factories in the world. Plaintiff Drew Estate has originated many famous
and successful cigar brands, including ACID, Liga Privada, Undercrown, Factory Smokes, Nica
Rustica, Kentucky Fire Cured, Herrera Esteli, Tabak Especial, and Isla del Sol.
8. Drew Estate has also organized and run the celebrated Barn Smoker experiential
events in Florida, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Louisiana, Texas and Kentucky; Cigar Safari cigar
tourism events in Nicaragua; Freestyle Live and other online virtual events; and thousands of in-
store live events at tobacconists’ retail cigar stores throughout the nation.
9. Drew Estate and its brands are among the world’s leaders in cigars, including in
creating new cigar brands and in sales volume.
10. Drew Estate has a strong history in creating, manufacturing, and selling numerous
“shop-exclusive” cigars that it sells solely to a single Drew Estate retail customer.
11. Plaintiff Boyd founded DTC in or around 2006 as a retail store and cigar bar in
Deadwood, South Dakota. The retail store sold various cigar brands from multiple manufacturers,
including Drew Estate, but did not at the time sell any house brands.
12. Starting in or about 2009, Drew Estate agreed with Boyd to create, make, and sell
to DTC a shop-exclusive cigar under the mark DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET JANE.
The cigar blend chosen by Drew Estate and Boyd for this DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET
JANE cigar was selected from a unique set of proprietary blends owned by Drew Estate.
13. Thereafter, in or around 2013 and 2014, respectively, Drew Estate agreed with
Boyd to create, manufacture and sell to DTC two additional shop-exclusive cigars under the marks
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. FAT BOTTOM BETTY and DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.
CRAZY ALICE.
3
70939350;3
14. From their inception, the DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET JANE,
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. FAT BOTTOM BETTY, and DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.
CRAZY ALICE cigars were marketed and sold under those marks as well as the marks
DEADWOOD, DEADWOOD TOBACCO, and DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.
15. Like DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET JANE, the cigar blends for
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. FAT BOTTOM BETTY and DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.
CRAZY ALICE were selected from a unique set of proprietary blends owned by Drew Estate.
16. For the packaging of each of DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET JANE,
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. FAT BOTTOM BETTY, and DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.
CRAZY ALICE, Drew Estate created iconic “sugar skull” images of female characters, who
together represented the marketing narrative of this DEADWOOD brand line of cigars – strong,
heartbreaking women from the brothels and barrooms of the seedy underbelly of the Old West in
Deadwood, South Dakota. In reference to this narrative and the delicious cigar blends used for
these DEADWOOD brand cigars, Drew Estate and Boyd also marketed and promoted them under
the mark THE YUMMY BITCHES. DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET JANE,
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. FAT BOTTOM BETTY, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.
CRAZY ALICE, DEADWOOD, DEADWOOD TOBACCO, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.,
and THE YUMMY BITCHES will be collectively referred to herein as the “DEADWOOD Marks”.
17. From their inception until approximately 2016, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.
SWEET JANE, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. FAT BOTTOM BETTY, and DEADWOOD
TOBACCO CO. CRAZY ALICE brand cigars remained shop-exclusives that Drew Estate sold
only to DTC.
4
70939350;3
18. In or around 2016, based on the consumer response to the unique blend profiles,
iconic brand imagery, and compelling narrative of the cigars sold under the DEADWOOD Marks,
Drew Estate and Boyd agreed that they could be successful nationwide if released and sold under
the DEADWOOD Marks by Drew Estate throughout the country.
19. Accordingly, on or about July 22, 2016, DTC (owned at the time by Boyd) and
Drew Estate entered into an exclusive license agreement (the “EXCL. TM LICENSE
AGREEMENT”) under which DTC granted Drew Estate an exclusive worldwide license to,
among other things, the DEADWOOD Marks, granting to Drew Estate the exclusive right to,
among other things, make and sell cigars under the DEADWOOD Marks and other marks
incorporating DTC’s name, mark, logo, or signature or facsimile thereof.
20. In that same month, Drew Estate announced its national release of the
DEADWOOD brand cigars at the 2016 IPCPR trade show, the largest trade show in the premium
cigar industry, hosted by and named for the trade association then known as the International
Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association. As reported at the time by the industry publication
Cigar Dojo in its review of announcements by Drew Estate at the 2016 IPCPR trade show, “Drew
Estate is making Deadwood’s Three Yummy Bitches line a national release. The line includes
Sweet Jane, Fat Bottom Betty, and Crazy Alice – previously a shop-exclusive for Deadwood
Tobacco Co. in South Dakota.”
21. Since that time, Drew Estate has, pursuant to and in accordance with the exclusive
license agreement, expanded its DEADWOOD brand line to include cigars sold under the mark
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. LEATHER ROSE starting in 2020, and cigars sold under the mark
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. THE GIRL WITH NO NAME starting in 2022. DEADWOOD
TOBACCO CO. LEATHER ROSE, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. THE GIRL WITH NO
5
70939350;3
NAME, and the DEADWOOD Marks will collectively be referred to herein as the DEADWOOD
CIGAR Marks.
22. Since the release of the DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET JANE brand cigar
in or around 2009, Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew Estate have spent millions of dollars promoting the
DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks. Plaintiffs have promoted the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks
through extensive advertising and promotional activities including: print advertising, online
advertising, sweepstakes, price promotions, hundreds of in-store events, trade shows, experiential
events, promotional “swag” (i.e., branded utilitarian items such as lighters, cutters, hats, t-shirts,
humidors, etc.), and inclusion in Drew Estate promotional and trade programs such as the Drew
Diplomat Retailer Program.
23. By virtue of Plaintiffs’ extensive promotion and use of the DEADWOOD CIGAR
Marks and their distinctiveness, the purchasing public (including retailers and end users) has come
to recognize DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET JANE, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.
FAT BOTTOM BETTY, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CRAZY ALICE, DEADWOOD
TOBACCO CO. LEATHER ROSE, and DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. THE GIRL WITH NO
NAME as a family of products marketed under a family of trademarks with a common origin (the
“DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS”).
24. The result of such promotional activity by Plaintiff Drew Estate is that the
DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks have become one of the most successful and widely sold cigar
brands in the United States, and both Drew Estate’s direct customers (such as retailers) as well as
the end user consuming public have come to associate the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks, including
but not limited to the DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS, with Plaintiff Drew Estate, which
6
70939350;3
inures to the benefit of Plaintiff Boyd as licensor. As a result, Plaintiffs’ rights in those marks are
highly valuable.
25. Plaintiff Boyd is the owner of various U.S. Trademark Registrations that have been
exclusively licensed to Plaintiff Drew Estate, including U.S. Trademark Registration No.
4,617,294 for DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET JANE, U.S. Trademark Registration No.
4,617,607 for DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CRAZY ALICE, U.S. Trademark Registration No.
4,648,322 for DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. FAT BOTTOM BETTY, and U.S. Trademark
Registration No. 6,397,678 for DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. LEATHER ROSE, all for cigars.
See Trademarks attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4.
26. On or about April 1, 2018, Plaintiff Boyd, under a Stock Purchase Agreement,
agreed to sell 99% of her interest in DTC to new owners. Excluded from that sale were the
DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks, including but not limited to the trademark registrations for
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET JANE, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CRAZY ALICE,
and DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. FAT BOTTOM BETTY, as well as the EXCL. TM LICENSE
AGREEMENT. On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff Boyd sold her remaining 1% interest in DTC to
the new owners.
27. Effective April 1, 2018, Defendant DTC assigned all of its rights and obligations
under the EXCL. TM LICENSE AGREEMENT, and any rights in the trademarks covered by that
license agreement and their associated goodwill, to Plaintiff Boyd. This included execution by
Defendant DTC and Plaintiff Boyd of an agreement titled ASSIGNMENT OF EXCLUSIVE
TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT (“ASSIGNMENT”) in which DTC explicitly
acknowledged that it received sufficient consideration as part of this agreement.
7
70939350;3
28. In an amendment to the EXCL. TM LICENSE AGREEMENT, Plaintiff Boyd
extended the term of the EXCL. TM LICENSE AGREEMENT to Plaintiff Drew Estate for fifty
(50) years from the July 22, 2016 Effective Date, to July 22, 2066.
29. In the amendment titled AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ASSIGNMENT OF
EXCLUSIVE TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT dated March 1, 2020 and executed by
DTC and Boyd (“FIRST AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT”), DTC
acknowledged that: (a) from inception, Defendant DTC and Plaintiff Drew Estate recognized that
they may wish to add to the family of marks exclusive licensed to Plaintiff Drew Estate under the
EXCL. TM LICENSE AGREEMENT that incorporate within them the mark “DEADWOOD
TOBACCO CO.”, and that (b) Defendant DTC benefitted from Plaintiff Drew Estate’s license of
marks that incorporated the mark DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.” It also acknowledged that
Plaintiff Boyd as assignee and Plaintiff Drew Estate may continue to expand the scope of marks
licensed to Plaintiff Drew Estate.
30. Defendant DTC expressly agreed to an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free license
to Plaintiff Boyd of the mark DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. in association or combination with
any other marks exclusively licensed to Plaintiff Drew Estate by Plaintiff Boyd, whether then or
in the future, and including the right to Plaintiff Boyd to sublicense use of DEADWOOD
TOBACCO CO. to Plaintiff Drew Estate. By way of example and not limitation, Defendant DTC
agreed that Plaintiff Boyd had a license to use DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. in combination
with LEATHER ROSE, to form the fourth mark DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. LEATHER
ROSE exclusively licensed to Drew Estate, and Plaintiff Boyd agreed to incorporate such mark in
the license granted to Plaintiff Drew Estate.
8
70939350;3
31. Based on the exclusive license from DTC and later Plaintiff Boyd, Plaintiff Drew
Estate has devoted substantial resources to building up goodwill and name recognition in the
DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks for cigars, both individually and as a family. These marks now enjoy
enormous consumer recognition and substantial goodwill. Drew Estate has sold millions of dollars
of cigars under the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks. Accordingly, the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks
are a property of significant value to Plaintiff Boyd and exclusive licensee Plaintiff Drew Estate.
Customers have come to strongly associate the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks with a single source,
Plaintiff Drew Estate, which inures to the benefit of owner Plaintiff Boyd.
INFRINGING ACTIVITIES OF DEFENDANT DTC
32. Defendant DTC has started to promote and sell cigars under trademarks that are
confusingly similar to the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks, including but not limited to the
DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS, infringing them.
33. At no point did Defendant DTC obtain permission to use any of the DEADWOOD
CIGAR Marks from either Plaintiff.
34. Furthermore, DTC has started to market its infringing products by trading on the
goodwill in the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks and DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS
developed and owned by Plaintiffs, not DTC. The infringing marks that Defendant DTC has begun
to use, and/or for which it has obtained or sought U.S. trademark registration, include the
following:
D.T.C. DEADWOOD TOBACCO COMPANY (U.S. Trademark Serial

No. 90/757,907 and U.S. Trademark Serial No. 90/634,190)
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON (U.S.
Trademark Serial No. 97/047,226, U.S. Trademark Registration No.
7,006,299, and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,872,906)
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON ZERO (U.S.

Trademark Serial No. 6,926,495)
9
70939350;3
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON AUNTIE (U.S.

Trademark Registration No. 6,926,496)
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON MIDNIGHT

OIL (U.S. Trademark Serial No. 97/251,438 and U.S. Trademark
Registration No. 6,926,497)
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. ZERO (U.S. Trademark Serial No.

97/818,535 and U.S. Trademark Serial No. 97/251,401)
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. AUNTIE (U.S. Trademark Serial No.

97/818,541 and U.S. Trademark Serial No. 97/251,424)
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. MIDNIGHT OIL (U.S. Trademark Serial

No. 97/818,545)
35. Defendant DTC has been offering for sale and selling the cigars in its retail store
and on its website using the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks under the marks as follows:
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON ZERO
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON MIDNIGHT OIL
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON AUNTIE
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON DOUBLE SWEET
36. The use by Defendant DTC of the marks in the two preceding paragraphs
(collectively, along with DEADWOOD, DEADWOOD TOBACCO, and DEADWOOD
TOBACCO CO., the “Infringing Marks”) in connection with cigars has created a likelihood of
confusion with cigars sold by Plaintiff Drew Estate under the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks,
including but not limited to the DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS.
37. Continued use by Defendant DTC of DEADWOOD, DEADWOOD TOBACCO
and DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO., alone or in combination with any other words or phrases in
connection with cigars has created and will continue to create a likelihood of confusion with cigars
10
70939350;3
sold by Plaintiff Drew Estate under the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks, including but not limited to
the DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS.
38. Continued use by Defendant DTC of the Infringing Marks in connection with cigars
has caused not just a likelihood of confusion but also actual confusion as to the source or origin of
the goods on which such marks are used both at the retailer and end consumer level.
39. In a letter to the cigar trade, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5, Defendant
DTC has been falsely representing to the public that it was the “originator” of THE YUMMY
BITCHES brand, and that its DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON brand
cigar was an addition to the lineage of Drew Estate’s cigars sold under the DEADWOOD CIGAR
Marks and an extension of the brand narrative used in connection with THE YUMMY BITCHES
mark that Drew Estate has, through extensive promotion, developed into a clear brand identity of
its DEADWOOD line of cigars, stating:
“As the originator of the “Yummy Bitches,” including Sweet Jane, Crazy
Alice, Fat Bottom Betty, and Leather Rose, we felt it was time to add a new
flavor profile to the lineage of greatness. With that, let me introduce you to
the new line. Deadwood Tobacco Co. Chasing the Dragon is the first of its
kind and boasts a rich selection of flavors never before introduced to the
cigar world.”
…
“Just like the yummy bitches pay homage to the madams that ran the
brothels in this notorious town, the DTC Chasing the Dragon name comes
from the underbelly of the wild west. While the madams were running the
ladies on Main Street, the ancient Chinese “medicine” was passed from
hand to hand in the shadows and tunnels of Deadwood. Opium had its hold
on many of the gold prospectors and cowboys looking to spend the day’s
earnings, and that is where the story of them Chasing the Dragon came from.
A cigar so good you crave another upon snuffing it out. We have three
different sizes, with different flavor notes available so far, with more
coming soon. The Auntie, Zero and Midnight Oil all carry names borrowed
from the street slang for opium at the time.”
40. These statements are false representations.
11
70939350;3
41. THE YUMMY BITCHES brand was originated, developed, and popularized by
Plaintiff Boyd as licensor and Plaintiff Drew Estate as exclusive licensee, the DEADWOOD
TOBACCO CO. (or “DEADWOOD”) CHASING THE DRAGON product is not connected to
and not an extension of Drew Estate’s cigars sold under the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks. Also,
Defendant DTC’s use of “Our YUMMY BITCHES CIGARS” (emphasis added) on its website in
connection with “SWEET JANE”, “CRAZY ALICE”, “FAT BOTTOM BETTY” and
“LEATHER ROSE” trades on the fame and goodwill of the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks and
DEADWOOD FAMILY OF CIGARS. Defendant DTC deliberately chose to make its false
statements to trade on the fame and goodwill of Plaintiffs’ marks.
42. Defendant DTC has directly and/or through its distribution partner attempted to sell
its CHASING THE DRAGON products to retailers as an extension of, add-on to, and/or
replacement of Drew Estate’s cigars sold under the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks. Defendant DTC
has thus been falsely representing to the public that its AUNTIE, ZERO, and MIDNIGHT OIL
brands are an extension of Plaintiff Drew Estate’s Deadwood brand and creating the impression
that the goodwill developed by Plaintiff Drew Estate and Plaintiff Boyd in the Deadwood CIGAR
MARKS brand and the YUMMY BITCHES should be extended to AUNTIE, ZERO, and
MIDNIGHT OIL.
43. The use by Defendant DEADWOOD of the Infringing Marks has resulted in injury
and damage to Plaintiff Drew Estate and Plaintiff Boyd.
44. In website searches recently conducted using Google’s search engine for the word
“Deadwood,” Defendant’s DTC’s website and store appeared as prominent hits. When accessing
Defendant’s website, a list of Plaintiff’s Drew Estate’s cigar brands using the DEADWOOD
CIGAR Marks appeared, but virtually all were noted to be “SOLD OUT.” Included in that list on
12
70939350;3
the same page of Defendant DTC’s website were Defendant DTC’s Chasing the Dragon cigars,
interspersed in the middle of Plaintiff Drew Estate’s cigar products. By listing these Drew Estate
cigars under various DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks but not having stocked them for what is, on
information and belief, a substantial time period, and placing Defendant DTC’s Chasing the
Dragon cigars right next to such out of stock product listings, Defendant DTC is attempting to
attract customers to its website using the strong reputation of Plaintiff Drew Estate’s brands and
DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks, but then in a classic “bait and switch,” trying to sell customers the
infringing DTC Chasing the Dragon cigar products instead.
45. Plaintiff Drew Estate notified Defendant DTC in a letter of January 27, 2023 that
its use of DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks including DEADWOOD CIGAR CO. CHASING THE
DRAGON, and misrepresentations that Defendant DTC is the originator of the Drew Estate’s
Deadwood brand and the YUMMY BITCHES marks, constitute trademark infringement and false
statements to the public, and has demanded that such activity cease to avoid likelihood of confusion
and trading on the goodwill of Plaintiff Drew Estate, and demanding corrective notice to the public,
but Defendant DTC has refused to comply.
46. On June 9, 2023, Defendant DTC wrote to Plaintiffs attempting to excuse its
infringement of the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks by making false claims that various agreements
and amendments it entered into with Boyd lacked consideration despite the agreements and
amendments explicitly stating otherwise and despite Defendant DTC executing those agreements
and amendments, agreeing to the adequacy and sufficiency of the consideration.
Defendant’s New Threats Of Imminent Litigation
47. In its letter to Plaintiffs dated June 9, 2023, Defendant DTC claims that “nothing
was exchanged” in the FIRST AMENDMENT, ASSIGNMENT, and FIRST AMENDMENT TO
13
70939350;3
ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT and, therefore, these contracts are unenforceable for lack of
consideration.
48. Defendant DTC further alleges that, even if these contracts were valid, there was
no grant of exclusivity to the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks to Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew Estate,
and that nothing precludes Defendant DTC from licensing the marks and selling cigars or other
items with the name “Deadwood Tobacco Co.,” in clear contravention of the plain language of the
written contracts.
49. Defendant DTC threatens legal action against Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew Estate for
breach of contract, breach of an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference
with a business contract relating to its supplier of the infringing Deadwood Tobacco Co. Chasing
The Dragon brand cigars, and declaratory judgment regarding the enforceability of the various
contracts, unless Plaintiffs “commence [certain actions] immediately.”
COUNT I
Federal Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
50. Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew Estate incorporate by reference the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein.
51. Plaintiff Boyd is the sole owner, and Plaintiff Drew Estate is the exclusive licensee,
of the federally-registered trademarks DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET JANE (U.S.
Trademark Registration No. 4,617,294), DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CRAZY ALICE (U.S.
Trademark Registration No. 4,617,607), DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. FAT BOTTOM BETTY
(U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,648,322), and DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. LEATHER
ROSE (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,397,678), for cigars and related goods (collectively, the
“Registered Marks.”) See Exhibits 1-4.
14
70939350;3
52. Defendant has used, and on information and belief, is continuing to use in
commerce the Infringing Marks, which are confusingly similar to each of the Registered Marks,
in promoting, offering to sell, and selling cigars.
53. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Marks in commerce was undertaken without
consent or approval by either Plaintiff.
54. Defendant’s unauthorized use in commerce of the Infringing Marks in connection
with cigars is an infringement of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights and has caused, and is likely to cause
confusion, mistake, or deception in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
55. Defendants’ infringement was, and continues to be, undertaken willfully and in bad
faith as part of a deliberate plan to deceive the public (including both cigar retailers and end users)
into believing that the Defendant’s products marketed under the Infringing Marks are sourced from,
sponsored by, affiliated with, or associated with Plaintiff Drew Estate, when they are not, and to
trade on the goodwill that Plaintiffs have established in the Registered Marks, all to the irreparable
injury of Plaintiffs.
56. Defendant DTC’s trademark infringement has damaged Plaintiffs’ sales, profits,
goodwill, and reputation, causing monetary damages and irreparable harm for which Plaintiffs
have no adequate remedy at law.
57. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Defendant’s willful, deliberate actions entitle
Plaintiffs to an award of profits, damages, and costs, including treble damages and an award of
Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs.
58. Defendant’s infringement will continue to cause substantial and irreparable harm
to Plaintiffs unless enjoined by this Court.
15
70939350;3
COUNT II
Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein..
60. Defendant DTC’s actions complained of herein, including its unauthorized use in
commerce of the Infringing Marks in marketing and selling cigars constitutes unfair competition
and is an infringement of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights in the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks
individually and the DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS as a family that is likely to cause
confusion, mistake, or deception among the purchasing public, including but not limited to cigar
retailers and end users, as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendant’s products by
Plaintiffs in violation of §43 (a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
61. Defendant DTC has engaged in unfair competition by advertising that it is the
“originator” of THE YUMMY BITCHES mark and line of cigars, expressly appropriating the
brand identity and trading on the goodwill of Plaintiffs’ DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks and the
DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS, and by expressly indicating that its CHASING THE
DRAGON cigars are an extension of the lineage of Plaintiffs’ cigars sold under the DEADWOOD
CIGAR Marks and DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS, by stating:
“As the originator of the “Yummy Bitches,” including Sweet Jane, Crazy
Alice, Fat Bottom Betty and Leather Rose, we felt it was time to add a new
flavor profile to the lineage of greatness. With that, let me introduce you
to the new line.”
…
“Just like the yummy bitches pay homage to the madams that ran the
brothels in this notorious town, the DTC Chasing the Dragon name comes
from the underbelly of the wild west. While the madams were running the
ladies on Main Street, the ancient Chinese “medicine” was passed from
hand to hand in the shadows and tunnels of Deadwood. Opium had its hold
on many of the gold prospectors and cowboys looking to spend the day’s
earnings, and that is where the story of them Chasing the Dragon came
16
70939350;3
from. A cigar so good you crave another upon snuffing it out. We have
three different sizes, with different flavor notes available so far, with more
coming soon. The Auntie, Zero and Midnight Oil all carry names borrowed
from the street slang for opium at the time.”
62. Defendant DTC has further engaged in unfair competition by attracting customers
to its website using marks confusing Plaintiffs’ trademarks and by listing on its website Plaintiff
Drew Estate’s DEADWOOD brand cigars, which it has not stocked, right next to (and intermixed
with) Defendant DTC’s CHASING THE DRAGON products in an unfair bait and switch attempt
to attract customers seeking Drew Estate’s DEADWOOD cigars to mistakenly purchase their own
cigars.
63. Defendant DTC has unfairly traded on the goodwill of Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew
Estate, causing loss of reputation and economic injury.
64. Defendant’s activities complained of herein were and continue to be undertaken
willfully and in bad faith as part of a deliberate plan to deceive the public into believing that the
Defendant’s products are from, sponsored by, affiliated with, or associated with Plaintiff Drew
Estate and Plaintiff Boyd, when they are not, and to trade on the goodwill that Plaintiff Drew Estate
and Plaintiff Boyd have established in the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks and the DEADWOOD
FAMILY OF MARKS.
65. Defendant is intentionally trading on Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation, resulting
in willful infringement, all to the irreparable injury of Plaintiffs.
66. Defendant’s unfair competition and false designation of origin has damaged
Plaintiffs, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of damages, profits, and costs, including treble damages
and Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs as a result of Defendant’s willfulness.
17
70939350;3
67. Defendant’s activities complained of herein have caused and, unless enjoined by
this Court, will continue to cause substantial and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs
have no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT III
Cancellation of Federal Trademark Registrations (15 U.S.C. §§ 1064 and 1119)
69. Upon information and belief, Defendant claims ownership of the following federal
trademark registrations and applications for trademark registration (collectively, “Defendant’s
Registrations and Applications”):
D.T.C. DEADWOOD TOBACCO COMPANY (U.S. Trademark

Application Serial No. 90/757,907 and U.S. Trademark Application Serial
No. 90/634,190)
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON (U.S.

Trademark Application Serial No. 97/047,226, U.S. Trademark Registration
No. 7,006,299, and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,872,906)
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON ZERO (U.S.

Trademark Application Serial No. 6,926,495)
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON AUNTIE (U.S.

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON MIDNIGHT

OIL (U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 97/251,438 and U.S.
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. ZERO (U.S. Trademark Application Serial

No. 97/818,535 and U.S. Trademark Serial No. 97/251,401)
DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. AUNTIE (U.S. Trademark Application

Serial No. 97/818,541 and U.S. Trademark Application Serial No.
97/251,424).
18
70939350;3
70. Defendants has no protectable trademark rights in any of the marks that are the
subject of Defendant’s Registrations and Applications.
71. The trademarks reflected in Defendant’s Registration and Applications in
connection with cigars are junior in priority to, and are likely to cause confusion with, Plaintiffs’
DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks and DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS, to which Plaintiffs own
the exclusive rights.
72. Pursuant to the Lanham Act, this Court has jurisdiction to order the USPTO to
rectify the trademark register and cancel Defendant’s trademark registrations and refuse
Defendant’s applications to register.
73. Defendant’s trademark registrations listed above were improvidently allowed and
should be cancelled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1064 and 1119.
74. Plaintiffs will be damaged if Defendant’s federal trademark registrations listed
above are not canceled and if Defendant’s applications to federally register listed above are not
refused.
75. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court declare that Defendant has no valid
rights in the trademarks reflected in Defendant’s Registration and Applications, order the
cancellation of the registrations, and order the refusal of the applications that constitute
Defendant’s Registration and Applications.
COUNT IV
Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Fla. Stat. 86.011
76. Plaintiff Boyd and Plaintiff Drew Estate incorporate by reference the allegations of
19
70939350;3
77. By its letter dated June 9, 2023, Defendant DTC alleges that Plaintiffs Boyd and
Drew Estate have tortiously interfered with a contract between Defendant DTC and a third party
to promote and sell a line of cigars.
78. An actual and justiciable controversy currently exists between Plaintiffs Boyd and
Drew Estate, on the one hand, and Defendant DTC, on the other hand, as to whether Defendant
DTC can bring and maintain a tortious interference claim against Plaintiffs in connection with
Plaintiffs objecting to the improper promotion and selling a line of cigars under trademarks that
infringe Plaintiffs’ DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks and to the improper deliberate trading on
Plaintiffs’ goodwill embodied by the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks that are exclusively licensed
to Plaintiff Drew Estate. Furthermore, Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew Estate have an economic interest
in the subject matter of the purported interference and, for this additional reason, no valid claim
can exist.
79. Defendant DTC does not have any IP rights to the use of the DEADWOOD CIGAR
Marks or any confusingly similar mark in connection with cigars, including as reflected in the
EXCL. TM LICENSE AGREEMENT, ASSIGNMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT, SECOND
AMENDMENT, and FIRST AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT.
80. Plaintiff Boyd and/or Plaintiff Drew Estate have the legal right to protect their
trademarks and associated goodwill and prevent others from infringing and improperly trading on
their goodwill.
81. Plaintiff Boyd has the exclusive right to license the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks,
including pursuant to the ASSIGNMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT, SECOND AMENDMENT,
FIRST AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, Stock Purchase Agreement, and First
Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement.
20
70939350;3
82. Plaintiff Drew Estate has the exclusive right to any and all use of the DEADWOOD
CIGAR Marks, including pursuant to the EXCL. TM LICENSE AGREEMENT, FIRST
AMENDMENT and SECOND AMENDMENT.
83. Defendant DTC assigned whatever rights it had in continuing to use the
DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks to Plaintiff Boyd, including the exclusive license to use of the
DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks to Plaintiff Drew Estate.
84. Contrary to the plain language of the various contracts, Defendant DTC has stated
that it has a right to the use of the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks, and that the various contracts are
unenforceable, pursuant to its letter dated June 9, 2023.
85. Defendant DTC improperly attempted to contract the use of the DEADWOOD
CIGAR Marks to a third party manufacturer/distributer to promote and sell a line of cigars to be
labelled and sold as “Deadwood Tobacco Co. Chasing the Dragon,” and has improperly used the
brand narrative and trading on the goodwill built by Plaintiffs and embodied by Plaintiffs’
DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks.
86. Defendant DTC’s continued infringement of the use of the DEADWOOD CIGAR
Marks has caused damage to Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew Estate.
87. The EXCL. TM LICENSE AGREEMENT, ASSIGNMENT, FIRST
AMENDMENT, SECOND AMENDMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT
AGREEMENT, Stock Purchase Agreement, and First Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement
are enforceable and binding contracts.
88. By reason of the foregoing, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between
Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew Estate and Defendant DTC regarding any alleged tortious interference
claim involving use of Plaintiffs trademarks by Defendant DTC.
21
70939350;3
89. A judicial determination is necessary at this time so that the parties’ dispute may
be resolved and the parties may be aware of their respective rights and obligations.
COUNT V
Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and SDCL §21-24-1
90. Plaintiff Boyd and Plaintiff Drew Estate incorporate by reference the allegations of
91. By its letter dated June 9, 2023, Defendant DTC alleges that Plaintiffs Boyd and
Drew Estate have breached various contracts and/or breached an implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing because Defendant DTC alleges that the contracts in question lacked consideration.
92. While such an allegation fails to identify a specific contract provision alleged to
have been breached, an actual and justiciable controversy currently exists between Plaintiffs Boyd
and Drew Estate, on the one hand, and Defendant DTC, on the other hand, as to whether Defendant
DTC can maintain a breach of contract claim or breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing against Plaintiffs.
93. Rather, each of the contracts in question, signed by Defendant DTC, explicitly
states that sufficient consideration was exchanged.
94. The EXCL. TM LICENSE AGREEMENT, ASSIGNMENT, FIRST
AMENDMENT, SECOND AMENDMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT
AGREEMENT, Stock Purchase Agreement, and First Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement
are all enforceable and binding contracts.
95. These contracts read together establish that Plaintiff Boyd has the exclusive right
to license the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks.
96. Plaintiff Boyd licensed the exclusive rights to sell, promote and/or manufacture
using the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks to Plaintiff Drew Estate.
22
70939350;3
97. At all times, Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew Estate have complied with the terms of the
various contracts.
98. At all times, Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew Estate have complied with any implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
99. Defendant DTC is disregarding the terms of the contracts in an effort to invalidate
Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew Estate’s contractual rights.
100. By reason of the foregoing, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between
Plaintiffs Boyd and Drew Estate and Defendant DTC regarding any alleged breach of contract and
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
101. A judicial determination is necessary at this time so that the parties’ dispute may
be resolved and the parties may be aware of their respective rights and obligations.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Boyd and Plaintiff Drew Estate requests judgment against
Defendant DTC as follows:
1. Defendant DTC be found to infringe Plaintiffs’ rights in the DEADWOOD CIGAR
Marks and in the DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C §1125(a);
2. Defendant DTC be found to infringe Plaintiff Boyd’s rights and Plaintiff Drew
Estate’s exclusive rights in the Registered Marks under 15 U.S.C. §1114(a);
3. Defendant DTC be found to have engaged in unfair competition in violation of
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C §1125(a);
23
70939350;3
4. Defendant be found to have no rights in the marks reflected in Defendant’s
Registrations and Applications, and that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office be ordered to cancel
the registrations and refuse the applications in Defendant’s Registrations and Applications;
7. Defendant DTC be ordered to issue a public notice that it is not the “originator” of
THE YUMMY BITCHES marks and has no rights in the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks in
connection with cigars and cigar products;
8. Defendant DTC and its owners, officers, and directors, and all those acting in
concert with them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from further acts of infringement;
9. Defendant DTC be found liable for damages in an amount to be determined at trial
and trebled due to Defendant DTC’s bad faith and willful infringement;
10. Plaintiff Boyd and Plaintiff Drew Estate be awarded the costs of this action and its
attorneys’ fees because the Court finds this to be an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);
11. Defendant DTC deliver up for impoundment, during the pendency of this action,
and for destruction upon entry of judgment, all products, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers,
receptacles, advertisements, and other material which are used in commerce upon or in connection
with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising of goods on or in connection with such
use which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive, which infringes Plaintiff
Boyd’s rights and Plaintiff Drew Estate’s exclusive rights, falsely designating source or origin, or
otherwise facilitating Defendant DEADWOOD’s unfair competition with Plaintiff Drew Estate;
12. Defendant DTC be directed to file with this Court and serve on Plaintiff Boyd and
Plaintiff Drew Estate within 30 days after service of an injunction, a written report under oath
setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendant DTC has complied with this
injunction; and
24
70939350;3
13. Entry of a judgment declaring that the various enforceable contracts grant Plaintiffs
BOYD and DREW ESTATE the exclusive right to the use of the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks.
14. Entry of a judgment declaring that Plaintiff Boyd and/or Plaintiff Drew Estate have
the legal right to enforce and/or prohibit the use of the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks.
15. Entry of a judgment declaring that Defendant DTC does not have any IP rights in
regards to the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks and as a result cannot contract the use of the
DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks to third parties, including but not limited to CLE Cigars
16. Entry of a judgment declaring that Defendant DTC cannot bring any claims based
on any statements by Plaintiff Boyd and/or Plaintiff Drew Estate stating that Plaintiff Boyd and/or
Plaintiff Drew Estate have the exclusive right to use or own the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks.
not tortiously interfered with a business contract involving Defendant DTC.
not breached the EXCL. TM LICENSE AGREEMENT, ASSIGNMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT,
SECOND AMENDMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, Stock
Purchase Agreement, and/or the First Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement.
19. Entry of a judgment declaring that Plaintiff Boyd and/or Plaintiff Drew Estate has
not breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to the EXCL. TM
LICENSE AGREEMENT, ASSIGNMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT, SECOND AMENDMENT,
FIRST AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, Stock Purchase Agreement, and/or
the First Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement.
20. Entry of declaratory relief, and any preliminary and permanent injunction and
equitable relief against Defendant DTC and its officers, agents, successors, employees,
25
70939350;3
representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in each of the
policies, practices, customs, and usages complained of herein, as may be allowed by law;
21. Grant such further and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Jury Demand
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
Date: June 14, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
____________________
DAVID BRAFMAN
Florida Bar No. 68289
777 S. Flagler Drive
Suite 1100, West Tower
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 653-5000
Facsimile: (561) 659-6313
Email: david.brafman@akerman.com
RYAN ROMAN
Florida Bar No.: 0025509
SELENA A. GIBSON
Florida Bar No.: 0299325
201 E. Las Olas Boulevard,
Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: (954) 463-2700
Facsimile: (954) 463-2224
Email: Ryan.Roman@Akerman.com
Email: Selena.Gibson@Akermman.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Vaughn Boyd and

SWI-DE, LLC, d/b/a Drew Estate
26
70939350;3
Case 1:23-cv-22213-RKA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2023 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT
1
EXHIBIT
2
EXHIBIT
3
EXHIBIT
4
Reg. No. 6,397,678 Boyd, Vaughn Mary (UNITED STATES INDIVIDUAL)

11946 Oak Dr.
Registered Jun. 22, 2021 Whitewood, SOUTH DAKOTA 57793
Int. Cl.: 34 CLASS 34: cigars, cigar cutters, cigar cases not of leather, cigar lighters
Trademark FIRST USE 7-20-2020; IN COMMERCE 7-20-2020
Principal Register The color(s) Red, black, white, beige, and brown is/are claimed as a feature of the mark.
The mark consists of a picture of a beige head of the dead lady with a red flower in her
brown hair. There is red around her eyes and lips. There is a white ribbon banner at the
bottom with the stylized red words "LEATHER ROSE". Behind the lady is a black line
drawing of a spider web. To the left of the spider web are the stylized words
"DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO". in black with a red background with a black and
white border to the top and bottom.
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the following apart from the mark as
shown: "TOBACCO CO" AND "LEATHER"
SER. NO. 88-842,613, FILED 03-20-2020

REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
WARNING: YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE

DOCUMENTS BELOW DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS.
Requirements in the First Ten Years*

What and When to File:
• First Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) between the 5th and 6th
years after the registration date. See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k. If the declaration is accepted, the
registration will continue in force for the remainder of the ten-year period, calculated from the registration
date, unless cancelled by an order of the Commissioner for Trademarks or a federal court.
• Second Filing Deadline: You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application
for Renewal between the 9th and 10th years after the registration date.* See 15 U.S.C. §1059.
Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods*

What and When to File:
• You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application for Renewal
between every 9th and 10th-year period, calculated from the registration date.*
Grace Period Filings*
The above documents will be accepted as timely if filed within six months after the deadlines listed above with the
payment of an additional fee.
*ATTENTION MADRID PROTOCOL REGISTRANTS: The holder of an international registration with an

extension of protection to the United States under the Madrid Protocol must timely file the Declarations of Use (or
Excusable Nonuse) referenced above directly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The
time periods for filing are based on the U.S. registration date (not the international registration date). The
deadlines and grace periods for the Declarations of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) are identical to those for nationally
issued registrations. See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k. However, owners of international registrations do not file
renewal applications at the USPTO. Instead, the holder must file a renewal of the underlying international
registration at the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, under Article 7 of the
Madrid Protocol, before the expiration of each ten-year term of protection, calculated from the date of the
international registration. See 15 U.S.C. §1141j. For more information and renewal forms for the international
registration, see http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/.
NOTE: Fees and requirements for maintaining registrations are subject to change. Please check the
USPTO website for further information. With the exception of renewal applications for registered
extensions of protection, you can file the registration maintenance documents referenced above online at
http://www.uspto.gov.
NOTE: A courtesy e-mail reminder of USPTO maintenance filing deadlines will be sent to trademark
owners/holders who authorize e-mail communication and maintain a current e-mail address with the
USPTO. To ensure that e-mail is authorized and your address is current, please use the Trademark
Electronic Application System (TEAS) Correspondence Address and Change of Owner Address Forms
available at http://www.uspto.gov.
Page: 2 of 2 / RN # 6397678
EXHIBIT
5
Save As... Print Reset
CIVIL
Case 1:23-cv-22213-RKA Document
JS 44 (Rev. 04/21) FLSD Revised 12/02/2022 1-6 COVER
Entered SHEET
on FLSD Docket 06/14/2023 Page 1 of 2
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided
by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed Cases Below.
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
VAUGHN BOYD and SWI- DE LLC, D/B/A DREW ESTATE, DEADWOOD TOBACCO COMPANY a/k/a DEAD
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Lawrence County, SD County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Ryan Roman, Esquire, Akerman LLP, 201 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1800, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Telephone: 954-463-2700
(d) Check County Where Action Arose: MIAMI- DADE MONROE BROWARD PALM BEACH MARTIN ST. LUCIE INDIAN RIVER OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
☐ 1 U.S. Government ☐3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) ☐ Citizen of This State ☐ 1 ☐ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ☐ 4 ☐4
of Business In This State
☐ 2 U.S. Government ☐4 Diversity ☐ Citizen of Another State ☐ 2 ☐ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ☐ 5 ☐ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country ☐ 3 ☐ 3 Foreign Nation ☐ 6 ☐ 6
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
☐ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ☐ 625 Drug Related Seizure ☐ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ☐ 375 False Claims Act
☐ 120 Marine ☐ 310 Airplane ☐ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ☐ 423 Withdrawal ☐ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 3729(a))
☐ 130 Miller Act ☐ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ☐ 690 Other 28 USC 157 400 State Reapportionment
☐ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ☐ 367 Health Care/ ☐ 410 Antitrust
☐ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ☐ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ☐ 430 Banks and Banking
RIGHTS
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ☐ 820 Copyrights ☐ 450 Commerce
☐ 151 Medicare Act ☐ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ☐ 830 Patent ☐ 460 Deportation
☐ 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans Liability ☐ 835New
Patent – Abbreviated
Drug Application ☐ 470 Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations
368 Asbestos Personal
☐ Injury Product Liability ☐ 840 Trademark 480 Consumer Credit
(Excl. Veterans) ☐ 340 Marine
☐ 880 Defend Trade Secrets ☐ (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
Act of 2016
☐ 153 Recovery of Overpayment ☐ 345 Marine Product LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ☐ 485 Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA)
of Veteran’s Benefits Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ☐ 710 Fair Labor Standards Acts ☐ 861 HIA (1395ff) ☐ 490 Cable/Sat TV
☐ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ☐ 350 Motor Vehicle ☐ 370 Other Fraud ☐ 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations ☐ 862 Black Lung (923) ☐ 850 Securities/Commodities/
☐ 190 Other Contract ☐ 355 Motor Vehicle ☐ 371 Truth in Lending ☐ 740 Railway Labor Act ☐ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
☐ 195 Contract Product Liability Product Liability ☐ 380 Other Personal ☐ 751 Family and Medical ☐ 864 SSID Title XVI ☐ 890 Other Statutory Actions
☐ 196 Franchise ☐ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Leave Act ☐ 865 RSI (405(g)) ☐ 891 Agricultural Acts
Injury ☐ 385 Property Damage ☐ 790 Other Labor Litigation ☐ 893 Environmental Matters
☐ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ☐ 791 Employee Retirement ☐ 895 Freedom of Information Act
Med. Malpractice Income Security Act ☐ 896 Arbitration
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS FEDERAL TAX SUITS ☐ 899 Administrative Procedure
☐ 210 Land Condemnation ☐ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ☐ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
Defendant)
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
☐ 220 Foreclosure ☐ 441 Voting ☐ 463 Alien Detainee 871
☐ 7609IRS—Third Party 26 USC ☐ 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
☐ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ☐ 442 Employment ☐ 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
☐ 240 Torts to Land ☐ 443 Housing/
Accommodations ☐ 530 General
☐ 245 Tort Product Liability ☐ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ☐ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION
☐ 290 All Other Real Property Employment Other: ☐ 462 Naturalization Application
☐ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ☐ 540 Mandamus & Other ☐ 465 Other Immigration
Other ☐ 550 Civil Rights Actions
☐ 448 Education ☐ 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee –
☐ Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
Transferred from ☐ 6 Multidistrict
☐ 1 Original ☐ 2 Removed ☐ 3 Re-filed ☐ 4 Reinstated ☐ 5 another district Litigation ☐ 7 Appeal to ☐ 8 Multidistrict Remanded from
Proceeding from State (See VI or
Court below) Reopened (specify) Transfer District Judge Litigation ☐ 9 Appellate Court
from Magistrate – Direct
Judgment File
VI. RELATED/ (See instructions): a) Re-filed Case ☐YES ☐ NO b) Related Cases ☐YES ☐ NO
RE-FILED CASE(S) JUDGE: DOCKET NUMBER:
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VII. CAUSE OF ACTION 15 USC 1125(a), 15 USC 1064, 15 USC 1119, 28 USC 2201;This action seeks relief for violation of federal trademark law
LENGTH OF TRIAL via 5 days estimated (for both sides to try entire case)
VIII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
DEMAND $ TBD CHECK YES only
and injunctive/declaratory if demanded in complaint:
relief
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
JURY DEMAND: ☐ Yes ☐ No
ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
June 14, 2023 /s/ Ryan Roman

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY : RECEIPT # AMOUNT IFP JUDGE MAG JUDGE
JS 44 (Rev. 04/21) FLSD Revised 12/02/2022
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the
use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil
complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official,
giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation
cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section “(see attachment)”.
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in
one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the
Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and
box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4
is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of
suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition
for removal is granted, check this box.
Refiled (3) Attach copy of Order for Dismissal of Previous case. Also complete VI.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict
litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this
box is checked, do not check (5) above.
Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (8) Check this box if remanded from Appellate Court.
VI. Related/Refiled Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases or re-filed cases. Insert the docket numbers and the
corresponding judges name for such cases.
VII. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553
Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VIII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Southern District
__________ District of
of Florida
__________
VAUGHN BOYD and )

SWI-DE LLC, D/B/A DREW ESTATE, )
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
DEADWOOD TOBACCO COMPANY a/k/a )
DEADWOOD TOBACCO COMPANY
)
CORPORATION
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Deadwood Tobacco Company a/k/a Deadwood Tobacco Company Corporation
c/o William Joseph Rectenwald, Registered Agent
20067 Ridgefield Loop
Spearfish, SD 57783
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
Ryan Roman, Partner
AKERMAN LLP
201 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date: 06/14/2023
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
Print Save As... Reset

Vaughn Boyd and SWI-De LLC D:B:A Drew Estate v. Deadwood Tobacco Company

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vaughn Boyd and SWI-De LLC D:B:A Drew Estate v. Deadwood Tobacco Company

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-22213-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2023 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No.: ______________________

VAUGHN BOYD and

Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEADWOOD TOBACCO COMPANY a/k/a

1. Plaintiff Boyd is an individual and citizen of South Dakota, residing in Whitewood,

South Dakota 57793.

Miami, Florida 33186.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant DTC is a corporation organized and

Deadwood, South Dakota 57732.

in this judicial district.

Plaintiffs’ Trademark Rights

creating new cigar brands and in sales volume.

DEADWOOD, DEADWOOD TOBACCO, and DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. FAT BOTTOM BETTY, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.

CRAZY ALICE, DEADWOOD, DEADWOOD TOBACCO, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.,

the DEADWOOD Marks by Drew Estate throughout the country.

incorporating DTC’s name, mark, logo, or signature or facsimile thereof.

Tobacco Co. in South Dakota.”

Diplomat Retailer Program.

to recognize DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. SWEET JANE, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO.

FAT BOTTOM BETTY, DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CRAZY ALICE, DEADWOOD

“DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS”).

See Trademarks attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4.

the new owners.

Defendant DTC and Plaintiff Boyd of an agreement titled ASSIGNMENT OF EXCLUSIVE

TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT (“ASSIGNMENT”) in which DTC explicitly

acknowledged that it received sufficient consideration as part of this agreement.

28. In an amendment to the EXCL. TM LICENSE AGREEMENT, Plaintiff Boyd

29. In the amendment titled AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ASSIGNMENT OF

EXCLUSIVE TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT dated March 1, 2020 and executed by

DTC and Boyd (“FIRST AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT”), DTC

licensed to Plaintiff Drew Estate.

30. Defendant DTC expressly agreed to an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free license

the license granted to Plaintiff Drew Estate.

INFRINGING ACTIVITIES OF DEFENDANT DTC

DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS, infringing them.

CIGAR Marks from either Plaintiff.

goodwill in the DEADWOOD CIGAR Marks and DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS

D.T.C. DEADWOOD TOBACCO COMPANY (U.S. Trademark Serial

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON ZERO (U.S.

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON AUNTIE (U.S.

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON MIDNIGHT

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. ZERO (U.S. Trademark Serial No.

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. AUNTIE (U.S. Trademark Serial No.

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. MIDNIGHT OIL (U.S. Trademark Serial

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON ZERO

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON MIDNIGHT OIL

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON AUNTIE

DEADWOOD TOBACCO CO. CHASING THE DRAGON DOUBLE SWEET

(collectively, along with DEADWOOD, DEADWOOD TOBACCO, and DEADWOOD

including but not limited to the DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS.

37. Continued use by Defendant DTC of DEADWOOD, DEADWOOD TOBACCO

the DEADWOOD FAMILY OF MARKS.

its DEADWOOD line of cigars, stating:

40. These statements are false representations.

statements to trade on the fame and goodwill of Plaintiffs’ marks.

and damage to Plaintiff Drew Estate and Plaintiff Boyd.

infringing DTC Chasing the Dragon cigar products instead.

but Defendant DTC has refused to comply.

and amendments, agreeing to the adequacy and sufficiency of the consideration.

Defendant’s New Threats Of Imminent Litigation