Telebrands v. E. Mishan & Sons - Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-03323-ES-SCM Document 39 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 31 PageID: 452
Liza M. Walsh
Hector D. Ruiz
Katelyn O’Reilly
Joseph L. Linares
WALSH PIZZI O’REILLY FALANGA LLP
One Riverfront Plaza
1037 Raymond Boulevard, 6th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Tel.: (973) 757-1100
Fax: (973) 757-1090
Robert T. Maldonado (admitted pro hac vice)

Tonia A. Sayour
Laura A. Alos (admitted pro hac vice)
COOPER & DUNHAM LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112
Tel.: (212) 278-0400
Fax: (212) 391-0525
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
TELEBRANDS CORP., PROMETHEUS

BRANDS, LLC and A2 PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT, INC., Civ. A. No. 2:18-cv-03323 (ES/SCM)
Plaintiffs, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
E. MISHAN & SONS, INC., GOTHAM Electronically Filed

STEEL LLC and MARVIN LEVY,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Telebrands Corp. (“Telebrands”), Prometheus Brands, LLC (“Prometheus”), and
A2 Product Development, Inc. (“A2”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), for their First Amended Complaint
1
against Defendants E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. (“Emson”), Gotham Steel LLC (“Gotham Steel”) and
Marvin Levy (“Levy”) (collectively, “Defendants”) allege as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Telebrands is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of New Jersey, having a place of business at 79 Two Bridges Road, Fairfield, New Jersey
07004.
2. Plaintiff Prometheus is a limited liability company organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware, having a place of business at 79 Two Bridges Road, Fairfield, New
Jersey 07004.
3. Plaintiff A2 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York, having a place of business at 245 West 29th Street, New York, New York 10001. A2
Product Development Inc. sometimes does business as “A2 Inc.”
4. Defendant Emson is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
of New York, having a place of business at 230 5th Avenue, Suite 800, New York, New York,
10001. Emson does business throughout the United States, including within the State of New Jersey
5. Defendant Gotham Steel is a limited liability company organized and existing under
the laws of the State of New Jersey, having a place of business at 157 Veterans Drive, Northvale,
New Jersey 07647.
6. Defendant Levy is an individual residing, on information and belief, at 8 Pineview
Terrace, Montvale, New Jersey 07645. Levy is a principal at Gotham Steel.
7. On information and belief, Levy actively and consciously directs Gotham Steel’s
actions as described herein.
8. On information and belief, both Levy and Gotham Steel are agents of the other and
2
act within the scope, purpose, and authority of that agency and with knowledge, permission, and
consent of the other.
9. On information and belief, Levy and Gotham Steel exhibit a unity of interests such
that any individuality and separateness between Levy and Gotham Steel has ceased as each is the
agent and alter-ego of the other with regard to the acts alleged herein.
10. On information and belief, Levy’s and Gotham Steel’s actions described in this First
Amended Complaint were made at each other’s direction and/or in concert or participation with each
other.
11. On information and belief, Levy’s and Gotham Steel’s actions described in this First
Amended Complaint were made as agent of one another, and for each other’s benefit.
NATURE OF THE CLAIMS, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ BACON BONANZA, PANCAKE BONANZA,
and MUFFIN BONANZA products infringe Plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights, including
trademark and patents and, with respect to MUFFIN BONANZA and were manufactured in violation
of a non-disclosure agreement. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the Trademark and Unfair
Competition Laws of the United States (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.), the Patent Laws of the United
States (35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), and the common law of the State of New Jersey.
13. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper under 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
1332(a)(1) and 1338(a) and (b).
14. Supplemental jurisdiction in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as the parties
are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs.
3
15. On information and belief, Defendants solicit and conduct business within the State
of New Jersey through their website, https://muffinbonanza.com/ and http://pancakebonanza.com,
and have committed tortious acts in the State of New Jersey.
16. Venue is proper within this Judicial District under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1391(b) and
(c), and 1400(b).
17. In addition, jurisdiction and venue are proper pursuant to the “Governing Law”
provision of the Non-Disclosure Agreement referenced herein and attached as Exhibit 10.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
RELEVANT BACKGROUND OF TELEBRANDS/PROMETHEUS
18. Telebrands is a direct marketing company and is engaged in the business of marketing
and selling a wide variety of consumer products in the State of New Jersey and elsewhere through
direct response advertising, catalogue, mail order, and internet sales, and through national retail
stores.
19. For over thirty years, Telebrands has been a leading developer and marketer of
consumer products. Telebrands is widely known through the retail industry for its success in driving
retail sales through its nationwide advertising programs.
20. Telebrands sells its products through television direct response advertising and
through national retail stores such as Wal-Mart, Target, Walgreens, Bed, Bath & Beyond, and CVS.
Telebrands is a recognized leader in the “As Seen On TV” industry and has received numerous
awards for its achievements from the industry and from its customers.
21. Prometheus is a company that owns intellectual property licensed to Telebrands.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND OF A2
4
22. A2 is a product design and development firm that develops consumer products for its
customers/collaborators. Some of A2’s customers/collaborators include but are not limited to,
Oneida, Wilton, Samsung and Bakelicious brands.
23. A2 develops new products, and then presents them to companies who may want to
manufacture, market and sell the products. Prior to disclosing A2’s ideas and proprietary
information relating to its product designs, A2 may require that recipients of such information enter
into non-disclosure agreements (“NDA”s). Upon execution of an NDA, A2 provides its product
design proprietary information to its customers/collaborators in the hopes that the parties will enter
into a formal agreement, for example, a licensing agreement.
24. A2 designed a novel two-part removable cupcake pan that allows users to easily
remove baked goods from a non-stick pan. The cupcake pan includes a removable insert with
tabs/handles that allow a user to easily lift the cupcakes out of the pan. A photograph of A2’s two-
part removable cupcake pan is shown below.
5
25. Telebrands is A2’s licensee for the two-part removable cupcake pan, pursuant to a
confidential license agreement dated March 5, 2018.
THE BROWNIE BONANZA TRADEMARK
26. In or about May 2017, Telebrands started manufacturing, marketing, offering for sale
and selling a copper bakeware product with a removable insert that enables users to easily remove
pre-cut baked goods from a non-stick pan under the mark BROWNIE BONANZA. Telebrands has
used the trademark BROWNIE BONANZA for cookware, namely, a baking pan, continuously since
then. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Telebrands’ website for the BROWNIE
BONANZA product, accessible at https://www.browniebonanza.com/.
6
27. The BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark was adopted to indicate the source of the
bakeware products. The mark is non-functional, fanciful, distinctive and well-recognized as and
represents the source of Telebrands’ product sold in association therewith and a substantial goodwill
of Telebrands throughout the United States, including in the State of New Jersey.
28. Prometheus is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,403,134, registered
on February 13, 2018, for the mark BROWNIE BONANZA for “cookware, namely, baking pan[s].”
(“BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark”). Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the
BROWNIE BONANZA U.S. Trademark Registration certificate. This trademark registration is
valid and subsisting.
29. Telebrands is the exclusive licensee of the BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark.
30. The BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark was not the first trademark used by
Telebrands that utilizes the word BONANZA. In mid-December 2014, Telebrands began marketing
a product that fills multiple water balloons at the same time, under the trademark BALLOON
BONANZA. Telebrands incorporated its prior use of the word BONANZA into its BROWNIE
BONANZA trademark.
31. Telebrands invested a significant amount of money in manufacturing the BROWNIE
BONANZA product, along with national advertising online, on television, and in retail stores.
Telebrands markets and sells its BROWNIE BONANZA product throughout the United States and
has aired television commercials nationwide and on the Internet exposing the BROWNIE
BONANZA Trademark to millions of viewers. Telebrands has made a substantial investment in the
marketing of the BROWNIE BONANZA product for cookware, namely, a baking pan.
32. The BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark has acquired secondary meaning.
7
33. Telebrands’ advertising and promotion highlights the BROWNIE BONANZA
Trademark.
34. As a result of its long and substantially exclusive use, substantial sales and extensive
advertising and promotional activities in connection with Telebrands’ baking pan products, the
BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark has become well-known and widely recognized as indicating
the source or origin of Telebrands’ products.
TELEBRANDS’ MUFFIN MAN PRODUCT
35. In an effort to expand upon its line of Red CopperTM cookware, Telebrands will
advertise, offer for sale and sell a non-stick pan with a removable insert for baking muffins, for
example, and easily removing them from the pan under the trademark MUFFIN MAN (“MUFFIN
MAN Product”). Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a marketing sheet for
Telebrands’ MUFFIN MAN PRODUCT, which is distributed to prospective buyers.
36. Telebrands’ MUFFIN MAN Product was designed in collaboration with A2.
37. Telebrands introduced the MUFFIN MAN product to buyers at the March 10, 2018
Housewares Show in Chicago, Illinois.
38. Telebrands MUFFIN MAN product is marketed and offered for sale online at
www.buymuffinman.com.
TELEBRANDS’ ORGREENIC FLIP JACK PRODUCT
39. Since at least as early as October 20, 2009, Telebrands has sold cookware products
under the mark ORGREENIC®. Telebrands’ exclusively licenses the ORGREENIC Trademark
from Stay Focused Marketing, LLC (“Stay Focused”). Levy is a principal of Stay Focused.
40. On or about December 3, 2012, Telebrands began marketing, offering for sale, and
selling a hinged, non-stick pan for easily making pancakes under the name ORGREENIC FLIP
8
JACK (the “ORGREENIC FLIP JACK Product”). Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct image
of Telebrands’ ORGREENIC FLIP JACK Product.
41. The ORGREENIC FLIP JACK Product is protected by U.S. Design Patent No.
D682,008 S, which was duly and legally issued on May 14, 2013 (“the D’008 patent”). Telebrands
is the exclusive owner of the D’008 patent. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the
D’008 patent. The D’008 patent is valid and subsisting.
42. On information and belief, Levy, the principal of Stay Focused, Telebrands’ licensor
of the ORGREENIC trademark, was aware of the ORGREENIC FLIP JACK Product since at least
2013 and was aware of the D’008 patent.
DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGEMENT OF THE BROWNIE BONANZA TRADEMARK

AND THE D’008 PATENT
43. Telebrands directly competes with several companies in the As Seen On TV
(“ASOTV”) market, including Defendants Emson and Gotham Steel. On information and belief,
Emson advertises, markets, distributes and sells ASOTV merchandise at many of the same national
retail outlets through which Telebrands sells its goods, including Wal-Mart, Target, and Bed, Bath
& Beyond.
44. On information and belief, Emson is a licensee of Gotham Steel, and Emson and
Gotham Steel work closely together and collaborate on many products.
45. In or about February 2018, Defendants began advertising and offering for sale on
their website, https://muffinbonanza.com, a copper muffin baking pan with a removable insert that
enables users to easily remove muffin products from a non-stick pan under the mark MUFFIN
BONANZA (“the MUFFIN BONANZA Product”).
9
46. Emson’s marketing materials state that the MUFFIN BONANZA Product is “by
GOTHAM STEEL,” thereby informing consumers that the product is made by or authorized by
Gotham Steel. On information and belief, Gotham Steel manufactured and/or assisted in
manufacturing the MUFFIN BONANZA Product and authorized, permitted and/or induced Emson
to market, advertise, and offer the product for sale under the MUFFIN BONANZA trademark.
47. The website, https://muffinbonanza.com, includes a page that sets forth the privacy
policy of Emson evidencing that the https://muffinbonanza.com, website is Emson’s. Attached as
Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Emson’s website for the MUFFIN BONANZA Product.
48. On information and belief, at approximately the same time that it launched the
MUFFIN BONANZA Product, Defendants also began advertising and offering for sale a two-sided,
hinged, non-stick, copper pan under the mark PANCAKE BONANZA (“the PANCAKE
BONANZA product”) that enables users to make pancakes.
49. Emson’s marketing materials state that the PANCAKE BONANZA product is “by
Gotham Steel. On information and belief, Gotham Steel authorized, permitted or induced Emson to
market, advertise, and offer the product for sale under the mark PANCAKE BONANZA.
50. The PANCAKE BONANZA product is used to make pancakes and was available for
purchase on Defendants’ website, https://pancakebonanza.com.
51. The website, http://pancakebonanza.com, included a page that sets forth the privacy
policy of Emson, evidencing that the http://pancakebonanza.com website is Emson’s. Attached as
Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of Emson’s website for the PANCAKE BONANZA Product.
52. On information and belief, Emson sold the PANCAKE BONANZA product on its
website.
10
53. On information and belief, Defendants were aware of Telebrands ORGREENIC FLIP
JACK product prior to marketing, selling, and/or offering for sale the PANCAKE BONANZA
Product.
54. Prior to the launch of the MUFFIN BONANZA and PANCAKE BONANZA
products, Defendants advertised, offered for sale and/or sold a bacon cookware product under the
mark BACON BONANZA (the “BACON BONANZA product”), which is marketed, offered for
sale, and/or sold through Defendants’ website, www.buybaconbonanza.com.
55. In its marketing materials, Emson states that the BACON BONANZA Product is “by
Gotham Steel. On information and belief, Gotham Steel authorized and/or induced Emson to
market, advertise, and offer the product for sale under the BACON BONANZA trademark.
56. Defendants’ website, www.buybaconbonanza.com, includes a page that sets forth the
privacy policy of Emson, evidencing that the www.buybaconbonanza.com website is Emson’s.
Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Emson’s website for the BACON BONANZA
Product.
57. Emson has offered for sale, marketed and/or sold and continue to offer for sale,
market and/or sell the MUFFIN BONANZA Product, the PANCAKE BONANZA Product, and the
BACON BONANZA Product throughout the United States and within the State of New Jersey.
Gotham Steel and/or Levy have authorized and/or induced and/or contributed to the foregoing acts
by Emson.
58. The MUFFIN BONANZA, PANCAKE BONANZA, and BACON BONANZA
Products all directly compete with Telebrands’ BROWNIE BONANZA product and are marketed
and sold to consumers through the same channels of trade.
11
59. Defendants are not affiliated with, authorized by, or sponsored by Plaintiffs, and have
no authority to use Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark or any
confusingly similar mark.
60. Upon learning of Defendants’ BACON BONANZA and MUFFIN BONANZA
Products, Telebrands sent cease and desist letters dated September 21, 2017 (to Gotham Steel) and
February 22, 2018 (to Emson) for each infringing product, demanding that Defendants cease and
desist from infringing the BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark.
61. Gotham Steel did not respond to Telebrands’ September 21, 2017 cease and desist
letter, so on October 14, 2017, Telebrands forwarded the letter to Emson, and asserted that the same
demands applied to Emson because Emson was marketing and selling the BACON BONANZA
Product.
62. On October 20, 2017 and on March 1, 2018, respectively, Emson’s counsel
responded to Telebrands’ cease and desist letters by indicating that Emson would not cease its use
of the BACON BONANZA and the MUFFIN BONANZA marks. Gotham Steel never responded
to the cease and desist letter, and in response to the letter, did not deny that it was offering for sale
or selling the BACON BONANZA and/or MUFFIN BONANZA Products.
63. In responding to the cease and desist letters, Emson asserted that, contrary to a finding
by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), as described herein, confusion is
not likely.
64. Specifically, on or about September 14, 2017, Emson filed a trademark application
for the mark BACON BONANZA. On information and belief, prior to filing this application, unlike
Telebrands, Defendants did not market, sell, and/or offer for sale any product under a trademark that
used the word BONANZA.
12
65. On information and belief, Defendants were aware of Telebrands’ and Prometheus’
BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark at least as early as when the BACON BONANZA trademark
application was filed.
66. On or about December 21, 2017, prior to issuance of Telebrands’ and Prometheus’
BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark, the USPTO provisionally rejected Emson’s application to
register the mark BACON BONANZA for “bacon trays; bacon racks, [and] bacon cookware” on the
grounds of likelihood of confusion between the BACON BONANZA mark and the prior BROWNIE
BONANZA mark. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the Office Action issued by
the USPTO in Emson’s application with the provisional rejection.
67. On information and belief, Defendants’ adoption and use of a copy or colorable
imitation of the BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark was deliberate and intentional and with full
knowledge of Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ rights.
68. Defendants’ adoption of a copy or colorable imitation of the BROWNIE BONANZA
Trademark was and is without Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ authorization or consent.
69. On information and belief, Defendants’ adoption and use of a copy or colorable
imitation of the BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark was and is with the intent and purpose of
confusing, misleading and deceiving the public, and unfairly capitalizing on Telebrands’ and
Prometheus’ initiative and goodwill.
70. By adopting and using a copy or colorable imitation of the BROWNIE BONANZA
Trademark, and by trading on Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ valuable goodwill, Defendants have
caused and are likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception of purchasers and potential
purchasers as to the source or origin of the BACON BONANZA, MUFFIN BONANZA, and
13
PANCAKE BONANZA products and as to the existence of an association, connection, or
relationship between Defendants and Telebrands and Prometheus.
71. By adopting and using a copy or colorable imitation of the BROWNIE BONANZA
Trademark, and by trading on Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ valuable goodwill, Defendants have
prevented Telebrands and Prometheus from building upon the goodwill established in the
BONANZA marks to their detriment.
72. Defendants’ adoption and use of a copy or colorable imitation of the BROWNIE
BONANZA Trademark and trade on Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ valuable goodwill was, on
information and belief, intentional and an effort to boost its sales of the MUFFIN BONANZA and
PANCAKE BONANZA Products. Defendants’ actions will negatively impact sales of Telebrands’
MUFFIN MAN Product and Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ substantial goodwill. Defendants’ acts
as recited herein have been undertaken in bad faith so as to compete unfairly with Telebrands and
Prometheus.
73. Defendants’ actions have damaged and are likely to continue damaging the reputation
and goodwill of Telebrands and Prometheus.
74. Plaintiffs are being irreparably injured and monetarily damaged by Defendants’ acts.
Telebrands and Prometheus have no adequate remedy at law.
INFRINGEMENT OF THE D’008 PATENT
75. The PANCAKE BONANZA Product embodies the invention of the D’008 Patent,
as shown in the comparison tables below:
Telebrands’ D’008 Patent Defendants’ PANCAKE BONANZA Product
14
15
76. The above comparison table demonstrates that an ordinary observer would find that
the ornamental design of the PANCAKE BONANZA Product to be substantially the same design as
the claimed design of the D’008 Patent.
BREACH OF NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
16
(Against Gotham Steel and Levy)
77. On information and belief, Defendants obtained the design for their MUFFIN
BONANZA Product by breaching a nondisclosure agreement with A2.
78. In or around April 2017, A2 presented newly developed products to Gotham
Steel/Levy, with the goal of entering into a license agreement for one or more of the products. One
of the products presented to Gotham Steel/Levy by A2 was the cupcake pan with a removable insert
with tabs/handles.
79. On or about April 11, 2017, A2 sent Gotham Steel/Levy photographs of the new two-
part removable cupcake pan designed by A2. One of those photographs is reproduced above in
paragraph 23. That same day, Gotham Steel/Levy sent A2 a Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”),
prepared by or for Gotham Steel/Levy, which acknowledged that disclosures by A2 relating to the
two-part removable cupcake pan were proprietary and confidential. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true
and correct copy of the executed NDA.
80. The NDA states that “Disclosee [Gotham Steel/Levy] agrees not to disclose
Confidential Information except to persons who have a need to know the confidential Information
for the purpose of evaluating whether Disclosee should advertise, sell or distribute the Product.
Disclosee agrees … not to disclose the Confidential Information to such persons unless such persons
agree to be bound by this Agreement.” Exhibit 10, p. 2.
81. The NDA further states that “[u]pon completion of its evaluation of the Confidential
Information, Disclosee shall promptly return all copies of documents and materials which were
provided to it by A2, unless otherwise directed by A2.” Exhibit 10, p. 2.
17
82. The NDA contains a non-competition clause, which dictates that “[f]or two (2) years
from the date of this Agreement, Disclosee shall not, directly or indirectly, manufacture, market,
offer for sale or sell a product similar in form and function to the Product.” Exhibit 10, p. 3.
83. In or about April of 2017, A2 provided Gotham Steel/Levy with a prototype of the
two-part removable cupcake pan, and with Computer Aided Design (“CAD”) drawings, that could
be used by a factory to manufacture the product.
84. By April of 2017, Levy’s relationship with Telebrands had soured, and, on
information and belief, Levy began to do business with one of Telebrands’ staunchest competitors,
Emson, instead of Telebrands.
85. On information and belief, Gotham Steel/Levy knew about the D’008 patent, and
intended for Emson to infringe the D’008 patent, and to unfairly compete with Telebrands. Because
the PANCAKE BONANZA product is nearly identical to the ORGREENIC FLIP JACK Product
and the D’008 Patent, Gotham Steel/Levy knew that the PANCAKE BONANZA Product would
infringe the D’008 patent.
86. A2 also sent Gotham Steel/Levy a draft license agreement for the two-part removable
cupcake pan, but it was never signed. As a result, an agreement was never reached for Gotham
Steel/Levy to manufacture, market and/or sell A2’s two-part removable cupcake pan.
87. Realizing that there was no license agreement, A2 repeatedly asked Gotham
Steel/Levy to return its prototype for the two-part removable cupcake pan, but it was never returned,
in violation of the NDA.
88. In violation of the NDA, Gotham Steel/Levy never returned the prototype,
photographs or CAD drawings, the “Confidential Information,” provided to them by A2.
18
89. On information and belief, Gotham Steel/Levy disclosed A2’s Confidential
Information relating to its two-part removable cupcake pan to third parties, including Emson and at
least one factory in China, without Emson or the factory agreeing to be bound by the NDA, in
violation of the NDA.
90. The MUFFIN BONANZA Product marketed and sold by Defendants is a muffin
baking pan with a removable insert that enables users to easily remove muffin products from a non-
stick pan. As such, the MUFFIN BONANZA Product is similar in form and function to the two-
part removable cupcake pan that is the subject of the NDA. This MUFFIN BONANZA Product has
been offered for sale within 2 years of the date of the NDA. As such, the direct or indirect
manufacturing, marketing, offering for sale and/or selling of such product by Gotham Steel/Levy
violates the NDA.
91. A2 is being irreparably injured and suffering monetary damages by Defendants’ acts.
A2 has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT ONE
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE LANHAM ACT

(U.S. TRADEMARK REGISTRATION NO. 5,403,134)
92. Telebrands and Prometheus repeat and reallege all of the factual allegations made
above and incorporate them herein by reference.
93. This cause of action for trademark infringement arises under Section 32 of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, and is for infringement and induced infringement of the trademark
BROWNIE BONANZA which is registered on the Principal Register of the USPTO as U.S.
Registration No. 5,403,134.
19
94. The unauthorized goods provided, sold and/or offered for sale by Defendants bearing
Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ federally registered trademark or colorable variations thereof are likely
to cause confusion, mistake or deception in that actual and potential customers are likely to believe
that Defendants’ goods are provided by, sponsored by, approved by, licensed by, affiliated or
associated with, or emanate from Telebrands and Prometheus, and Defendants’ acts constitute
trademark infringement.
95. The “by Gotham Steel” labeling on the MUFFIN BONANZA, BACON BONANZA
and PANCAKE BONANZA Products identifies Gotham Steel’s participation or involvement in the
manufacturing, supply, distribution, endorsement, and/or promotion of the products with the
infringing trademarks.
96. On information and belief, Gotham Steel/Levy approve all licensed use of the
GOTHAM STEEL Trademark and the products on which the trademark is affixed.
97. Gotham Steel knew, or had reason to know, that it was engaging in trademark
infringement through its involvement in the manufacturing, supplying, distributing, endorsing,
and/or promoting the infringing goods thereby constituting contributory trademark infringement in
violation of federal law.
98. Defendants will continue their infringing acts unless enjoined by this Court.
Telebrands and Prometheus have no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT TWO
INFRINGEMENT OF BROWNIE BONANZA TRADEMARK

IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 43(A) OF THE LANHAM ACT
100. This cause of action arises under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
20
101. The acts of Defendants alleged herein, including their unauthorized marketing, sale,
and/or offer for sale of cookware and bakeware products under the names BACON BONANZA,
PANCAKE BONANZA, and MUFFIN BONANZA, and inducement of the foregoing acts, are
likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception of purchasers and potential purchasers as to the
origin, sponsorship, or approval of products by Telebrands and Prometheus.
102. By using such trademarks, Defendants have falsely and misleadingly described and
suggested that the BACON BONANZA Product, the PANCAKE BONANZA Product, and the
MUFFIN BONANZA Product emanate or are sponsored or approved by Telebrands and/or
Prometheus.
103. The “by Gotham Steel” labeling on the MUFFIN BONANZA, BACON BONANZA
and PANCAKE BONANZA Products identifies Gotham Steel’s participation or involvement in the
manufacturing, supply, distribution, endorsement, and/or promotion of the products with the
infringing trademarks.
104. On information and belief, Gotham Steel/Levy approve all licensed use of the
GOTHAM STEEL Trademark and the products on which the trademark is affixed.
105. Gotham Steel knew, or had reason to know, that it was engaging in trademark
infringement through its involvement in the manufacturing, supplying, distributing, endorsing,
and/or promoting the infringing goods thereby constituting contributory trademark infringement in
violation of federal law.
106. On information and belief, Defendants’ conduct was and is willful and intentional.
107. On information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe upon Telebrands’
and Prometheus’ rights under §43(a) of the Lanham Act unless and until they are enjoined by this
Court. Telebrands and Prometheus have no adequate remedy at law.
21
COUNT THREE
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION

UNDER NEW JERSEY COMMON LAW
109. This cause of action arises under the New Jersey common law.
110. Defendants’ sale or inducement of sale of the BACON BONANZA Product, the
PANCAKE BONANZA Product, and MUFFIN BONANZA Product constitutes unfair competition
in violation of the laws of the State of New Jersey.
111. By copying Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ trademark and using the word BONANZA
in connection with cookware and bakeware, Defendants have misappropriated Telebrands’ and
Prometheus’ significant investment and expenditures into the marketing for the BROWNIE
BONANZA product and acquisition of the BROWNIE BONANZA trademark and are seeking to
take advantage of the market that Telebrands and Prometheus have created for the product.
112. On information and belief, Defendants’ conduct is specially designed to capitalize on
the initiative and goodwill of Telebrands and Prometheus and has injured and threatens to continue
to injure Telebrands and Prometheus, including loss of customers, dilution of goodwill and injury to
their reputation.
113. Defendants have unfairly competed with Telebrands and Prometheus in violation of
Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ common law rights.
114. On information and belief, Defendants’ conduct was and is willful and intentional,
and has damaged Telebrands and Prometheus.
115. Defendants will continue to cause irreparable damage to Telebrands and Prometheus,
22
including loss of customers, damage to reputation and goodwill, in an amount which cannot be
determined. Telebrands and Prometheus have no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT FOUR
UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER N.J.S.A. §56:4-1, et seq.
117. This cause of action arises under N.J.S.A. §56:4-1, et seq.
118. Defendants’ unauthorized use in commerce of the BACON BONANZA mark, the
PANCAKE BONANZA mark, and MUFFIN BONANZA mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake
or deception of purchasers and potential purchasers as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of
Defendants’ products by Telebrands and/or Prometheus.
119. Defendants’ unauthorized use in commerce of the BACON BONANZA, the
PANCAKE BONANZA, and the MUFFIN BONANZA marks falsely designate the origin of
Defendants’ products and is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception about the origin of
Defendants’ goods.
120. By using such copy of Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ BROWNIE BONANZA
trademark, Defendants have falsely and misleadingly described and suggested that the products that
they are selling and offering for sale emanate from or are sponsored or approved by Telebrands and
Prometheus.
121. The foregoing acts of Defendants constitute unfair competition in violation of
N.J.S.A. § 56:4-1.
122. Defendants’ statutory violations and other wrongful acts have injured and threaten to
23
continue to injure Telebrands and Prometheus, including loss of customers, dilution of goodwill,
confusion of existing and potential customers and injury to its reputation. Defendants’ acts are and
have been willful and have damaged Telebrands and Prometheus, and unless restrained, will
continue to cause irreparable damage to Telebrands and Prometheus, including damage to reputation
and goodwill, in an amount which cannot be determined. Telebrands and Prometheus have no
adequate remedy at law.
COUNT FIVE
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Against Gotham Steel and Levy)
123. A2 repeats and realleges all of the factual allegations made above and incorporates
them herein by reference.
124. This cause of action arises under New Jersey common law.
125. The NDA is a valid contract between A2, on the one hand, and Gotham Steel and
Levy, on the other hand.
126. A2 performed all of its obligations under the NDA, by providing Confidential
Information to Gotham Steel and Levy.
127. Gotham Steel and Levy have breached the NDA with A2 by directly or indirectly
manufacturing, marketing, offering for sale and/or selling the MUFFIN BONANZA product, which
is similar in form or function to the two-part removable cupcake pan developed and disclosed by A2
pursuant to the NDA.
128. Gotham Steel and/or Levy directly or indirectly manufacture, market, offer for sale
and/or sell the MUFFIN BONANZA product within two years of A2’s disclosure of Confidential
Information to Gotham Steel under the NDA.
24
129. Gotham Steel and/or Levy breached the NDA by not returning Confidential
Information to A2 upon completion of its evaluation.
130. Gotham Steel and/or Levy’s breach of contract is damaging A2 in the form of
monetary loss and irreparable harm.
131. Gotham Steel and Levy have acknowledged that breach of the NDA will cause
irreparable harm to A2.
132. On information and belief, Gotham Steel’s and/or Levy’s acts are and have been
willful and have damaged A2, and unless restrained, will continue to cause irreparable damage to
A2 in an amount which cannot be determined. A2 has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT SIX
INDUCEMENT OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE D’008 PATENT
(Against Gotham Steel/Levy)
133. Telebrands repeats and realleges all of the factual allegations made above and
incorporates them herein by reference.
134. This cause of action arises under Section 35 of the Patent Laws of the United States,
35 U.S.C. § 271.
135. The D’008 patent is valid and enforceable.
136. By the acts alleged herein, Emson has made, used, offered to sell, sold and/or
imported into the United States, and on information and belief, still is making, using, offering for
sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States, products having a design that infringes directly
or indirectly, the claim of the D’008 Patent without Telebrands’ authorization or consent.
137. On information and belief, Gotham Steel and Levy actively induced Emson to
infringe the D’008 Patent by encouraging, marketing, and promoting the use, manufacture,
importation, offer for sale, and sale of the PANCAKE BONANZA Product.
25
138. Defendant Levy has known of the ORGREENIC Flip Jack product and the D’008
patent since at least 2013.
139. Levy is the principal and alter ego of Gotham Steel, and Levy’s knowledge and intent
is imputed to Gotham Steel.
140. Gotham Steel/Levy has specifically intended from Emson to infringe the D’008
patent.
141. On information and belief, Gotham Steel/Levy’s inducement of infringement has
been willful, making this an exceptional case.
142. As a direct and proximate cause of Gotham Steel/Levy’s indirect infringement, as
alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the amount
of any such damages. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendants have had
actual knowledge of the D’008 Patent, but nonetheless has induced infringement and continue to
induce infringement of the D’008 Patent in a willful and deliberate disregard of Telebrands’ rights
therein and with the intent to infringe those rights.
143. Gotham Steel/Levy will, on information and belief, continue to induce Emson to
infringe upon Telebrands’ rights under § 271 of the Patent Act, unless and until they are enjoined by
this Court. Telebrands has been and is likely to continue to be irreparably injured unless Defendants
are enjoined. Telebrands has no adequate remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:
a. Entering judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor and against Defendants;
b. Adjudging and decreeing that Gotham Steel and Levy have unlawfully induced
infringement of the D’008 Patent;
26
c. Temporarily restraining, and preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their
agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all those acting in concert or participation with them from:
1. importing, distributing, advertising, promoting, selling, or offering for sale any
product under or in connection with the BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark or
any colorable variation thereof, including without limitation BACON
BONANZA, PANCAKE BONANZA or MUFFIN BONANZA, unless the
product emanates from or is authorized by Plaintiffs;
2. using the BACON BONANZA Trademark;
3. using the MUFFIN BONANZA Trademark;
4. using the PANCAKE BONANZA Trademark
5. importing, distributing, advertising, promoting, selling, or offering for sale the
MUFFIN BONANZA product or any product similar in form or function;
6. adopting, registering or seeking to register any trademark which incorporates in
whole or in part Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ BONANZA mark for use in
connection with cookware or bakeware;
7. making, using, importing, distributing, advertising, promoting, selling, or
offering for sale the PANCAKE BONANZA product or any colorable imitation
thereof, or any other substantially similar product to the design claimed in the
D’008 patent;
8. infringing the D’008 patent; and
9. otherwise unfairly competing with Defendants in any manner.
d. Requiring Defendants to:
1. cancel all outstanding orders for the BACON BONANZA, PANCAKE
BONANZA, and MUFFIN BONANZA Products and to refund any monies
27
received;
2. cancel all advertising for the BACON BONANZA, PANCAKE BONANZA
and MUFFIN BONANZA Products;
3. notify all customers that the BACON BONANZA, PANCAKE BONANZA
and MUFFIN BONANZA Products are not associated with, sponsored by or
affiliated with Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ Products; and
4. issue a recall of all BACON BONANZA, PANCAKE BONANZA, and
MUFFIN BONANZA Products Defendants have shipped to their customers.
e. Requiring Gotham Steel/Levy to pay Telebrands for damages Telebrands has suffered
arising out of and/or as a result of Defendants’ patent infringement including Telebrands’ lost profits,
Defendants’ profits and/or reasonable royalties for Defendants’ patent infringement, and any other relief
provided for in 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289.
f. Requiring Defendants to pay their profits to Telebrands and Prometheus, any
damages sustained by Telebrands and Prometheus as a result of their acts, and costs for the action,
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and/or N.J.S.A. 56:4-1 et seq. and/or any other damages recoverable
under any other statute or law alleged in this Complaint;
g. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees because of the exceptional nature
of this case, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and/or any other applicable statute or
law;
h. Requiring Defendants to pay treble damages to Plaintiffs due to the exceptional
circumstances of this case, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and/or any other
applicable statute or law;
i. Requiring that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and
advertisements of Defendants’ BACON BONANZA, PANCAKE BONANZA, and MUFFIN
28
BONANZA Products, and any reproduction, copy, counterfeit or colorable imitation of the
BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark, and all plates, molds, matrices and other means of making the
same, be delivered up to Plaintiffs for destruction, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118;
j. Requiring Gotham Steel and Levy to pay any damages sustained by A2 as a result of
their breach of contract under New Jersey Common Law and interest thereon; and
k. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
May 3, 2018 By: s/Liza M. Walsh
Liza M. Walsh
Hector D. Ruiz
Katelyn O’Reilly
Joseph L. Linares
Tel.: (973) 757-1100
Fax: (973) 757-1090

Tonia A. Sayour
COOPER & DUNHAM LLP
Tel.: (212) 278-0400
Fax: (212) 391-0525
RMaldonado@cooperdunham.com
TSayour@cooperdunham.com
LAlos@cooperdunham.com
29
RULE 11.2 CERTIFICATION
Plaintiffs Telebrands Corp., Prometheus Brands, LLC and A2 Product Development, Inc.,
by their undersigned counsel, hereby certify pursuant to Local Civil Rule 11.2 that the matter in
controversy in the present action is not the subject of any other action pending in any court, or of
any pending arbitration or administrative proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
Liza M. Walsh
Hector D. Ruiz
Katelyn O’Reilly
Joseph L. Linares
Tel.: (973) 757-1100
Fax: (973) 757-1090

Tonia A. Sayour
COOPER & DUNHAM LLP
Tel.: (212) 278-0400
Fax: (212) 391-0525
30
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO L. CIV. R. 201.1

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 201.1, Plaintiffs Telebrands Corp., Prometheus Brands, LLC
and A2 Product Development, Inc., through their attorneys, certify that the above captioned matter
is not subject to compulsory arbitration.
Liza M. Walsh
Hector D. Ruiz
Katelyn O’Reilly
Joseph L. Linares
Tel.: (973) 757-1100
Fax: (973) 757-1090

Tonia A. Sayour
COOPER & DUNHAM LLP
Tel.: (212) 278-0400
Fax: (212) 391-0525
31
Case 2:18-cv-03323-ES-SCM Document 39-1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 54 PageID: 483
Exhibit 1
01213456 Case 2:18-cv-03323-ES-SCM Document78
9
ÿFiled
39-1 7ÿ05/03/18
Page 2 of 54 PageID: 484
!""#$%&'((()*!%(#+"*%#,#-,)%.'/012)03)04'15'13'//
$&&7899((()*!%(#+"*%#,#-,)%.9ÿ
04)03)/012ÿ
978711
799779189 513
01213456 Case 2:18-cv-03323-ES-SCM Document78
9
ÿFiled
39-1 7ÿ05/03/18
978711
799779189 313
Exhibit 2
Reg. No. 5,403,134 Prometheus Brands, LLC (NEW JERSEY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
79 Two Bridges Road
Registered Feb. 13, 2018 Fairfield, NEW JERSEY 07004
CLASS 21: Cookware, namely, baking pan

Int. Cl.: 21
FIRST USE 5-17-2017; IN COMMERCE 5-17-2017
Trademark
THE MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHARACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY
Principal Register PARTICULAR FONT STYLE, SIZE OR COLOR
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the following apart from the mark as shown:
"BROWNIE"
SER. NO. 87-328,954, FILED 02-08-2017

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 h
ttp://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 # 5403134
Exhibit 3
Easy Oversized Mufﬁns!

Tough Grade
Copper Infused Ceramic
Makes
Jumbo
Mufﬁns!
Simply...
PFOA
Free!
Fill
Bake
Lift! Features
• 7 oz Capacity Muffin Cups
• Non-stick, Anti-scratch
• Dishwasher Safe
79 Two Bridges Road, Fairfield NJ 07004

973-244-0300 • Fax: 973-244-0233 • www.telebrands.com
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
USOOD682008S
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: US D682,008 S

Shahani (45) Date of Patent: . May 14, 2013
(54) HINGED COOKING UTENSIL 1,568,798 A * 1/1926 Caver ........................... 220/4.21
1987,594 A * 1/1935 Chiles et al. .................... 99.426
2,020,349 A 11, 1935 B tt et al.
(71) Applicant: Telebrands Corp., Fairfield, NJ (US) D119,081 S 2, 1940 WE."
2,463,439 A 3, 1949 Strietelmeier
(72) Inventor: Rajoo M. Shahani, Fairlawn, NJ (US) D157,614 S 3, 1950 Milano
D173.897 S 1/1955 Cunningham et al.
(73) Assignee: Telebrands Corp., Fairfield, NJ (US) D179,087 S * 10/1956 Kelso ............................. D7,352
2,830,529 A 4, 1958 Jaffe
3,007,595 A * 1 1/1961 Remley ........................ 220,422
(**) Term: 14 Years 3,276,350 A 10/1966 Johns
D227,333 S 6, 1973 Di Lorenzo
(21) Appl. No. 29/439,206 D227,431 S 6, 1973 Di Lorenzo
D231,069 S * 4, 1974 Boldt ............................. D7,356
(22) Filed: Dec. 7, 2012 D233,302 S 10/1974 Trovinger
9 3,963,898 A * 6/1976 Tuckwell ...................... 219,524
(51) LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. O7-02 4.011431 A * 3/1977 Levin ................. ... 219,524
(52) U.S. Cl. D244.344 S * 5/1977 Rheingold et al. . ... D7,361
USPC ............................................. D7/352:s D7/354 D252,493 S 7, 1979 Barradas ........................ D7,361
D276,971 S 1, 1985 Potts
(58) Field of Classification Search ................... D7/323, D281,481 S * 1 1/1985 Geiser ............................ D7,361
D7/329–332, 337 339, 346 347, 350.1-350.4, 4,773,318 A * 9/1988 Furletti ........................... 99,424
D7/352–367, 391-395,402-409, 538–543, 4,803,918. A * 2/1989 Carbon et al. .................. 99/377
D7/608, 665; 99/324-325, 330–332, 337 343, 36. "ES", a 99.373
99/366-373, 380, 400 418, 422–425, 444, 4-1-1 . .... ... ... ... ... .
99/483; 126/37 R, 41 R, 261,369,378.1; (Continued)

206/501-505,507508. 219/387, 400, 405, Primary Examiner Ricky Pham
219/429–442, 452.11, 524, 620–624, 725, (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Cooper & Dunham LLP
219/730735: 220/4.21-4.22, 314315,
220/573.1-573.5, 592.16,912; 426/438, (57) CLAM
426/441 The ornamental design for a hinged cooking utensil, as shown
See application file for complete search history. and described.
(56) References Cited DESCRIPTION
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 1 is a top perspective view thereof;
63,753 A * 4, 1867 Russell ........................... 99.402 FIG. 2 is a top view thereof;
111,516 A 2, 1871 Colborne et al. FIG. 3 is a bottom view thereof;
267,535 A 11, 1882 Hurd FIG. 4 is a left side view thereof;
37. A l I St.
acoby FIG. 5 is a right side view thereof;
740,050 A 9, 1903 Shults FIG. 6 is a front side view thereof, and,
951,065. A 3/1910 Ferguson FIG. 7 is a rear side view thereof.
1,010,887 A 12, 1911 French ............................ 99,424
1410,818 A ck
3/1922 McCargar ....................... 99,424 1 Claim, 5 Drawing Sheets
US D682,008 S
Page 2
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 6,681,683 B2 1/2004 Bart

ck
5,481,963 A 1/1996 Sesona et al. R18,992 SS * 1 426
D532,246 1/2006 Howard.......................
Lane et al. ... D7,352
D7/353
5,501,141 A * 3/1996 Mendez et al. ................. 99.426 D536,921 Sck 2/2007 Tarlow et al. .................. D7,361
5,642,659 A 7, 1997 Sesona et al. D541,583 S ck 5/2007 Morgan
6,035,767 A * 3/2000 Gibson ........................... 99,424 D542,080 S ck 5/2007 Trigiani ......................... D7,352
6,508,166 B1* 1/2003 Hennessey ...................... 99,355 D663,994 S 7/2012 Lee .... D7/352
D473.416 S 4, 2003 Bart 2003/0196561 A1*ck 10, 2003 Bart ................................ 99,424
6,539,844 B1 4/2003 Bart 2009/0049993 A1 2/2009 Morgan
6,550,374 B1 4/2003 Bart
6,595,114 B1 7/2003 Endres et al.
D479,944 S * 9/2003 Hennessey ..................... D7,352 * cited by examiner
U.S. Patent May 14, 2013 Sheet 1 of 5 US D682,008 S



S

Exhibit 6
01213456Case 2:18-cv-03323-ES-SCM Document739-1
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
ÿ Page 20 of 54 PageID: 502
!""#$%&'()**+#,%#-#.-/%('0123/14/15'26'07'66
$&&9:;;()**+#,%#-#.-/%(;ÿ
15/14/0123ÿ
978711
799779189 510
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
978711
799779189 310
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
978711
799779189 010
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
!"##$%&'()*++,$-&$.$/.0!&)(1234025026(37(18(12
%'':;<<)*++,$-&$.$/.0!&)<:.=#<:",>.!?(:&@,!?ÿ
2602501234ÿ
978711
799779189 51
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
978711
799779189 31
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
978711
799779189 01
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
978711
799779189 1
Exhibit 7
012313425Case 2:18-cv-03323-ES-SCM Document
6789
939-1
119Filed
05/03/18
69

17

6789
911969
17
21
6789
939-1
119Filed
05/03/18
69

17

6789
911969
17
31
6789
939-1
119Filed
05/03/18
69

17

6789
911969
17
1
Exhibit 8
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
!""#$%&'()*(+%#(%#+#,+-%.'/012-03-04'15'30'34
$&&7899()*(+%#(%#+#,+-%.9ÿ
04-03-/012ÿ
978711
799779189 510
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
978711
799779189 310
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
978711
799779189 010
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
!"##$%&'()*+),!&$)&$,$-,.!&/(0123.14.15(26(44(61
%''89::)*+),!&$)&$,$-,.!&/:8,;#:8"<=,!+(8&><!+ÿ
15.14.0123ÿ
978711
799779189 51
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
978711
799779189 31
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
978711
799779189 01
89
ÿFiled
705/03/18
978711
799779189 1
Exhibit 9
To: E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. (pbucci@notaromichalos.com)

Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 87608597 - BACON BONANZA - J137-3221
Sent: 12/21/2017 7:47:30 PM
Sent As: ECOM101@USPTO.GOV
Attachments: Attachment - 1
Attachment - 2
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION
SERIAL NO. 87608597
MARK: BACON
BONANZA
*87608597*
CORRESPONDENT
ADDRESS: CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS
PETER BUCCI LETTER:
NOTARO, MICHALOS http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
& ZACCARIA P.C.
100 DUTCH HILL
ROAD, SUITE 240 VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
ORANGEBURG, NY
10962
APPLICANT: E. Mishan &

Sons, Inc.
CORRESPONDENT’S
REFERENCE/DOCKET
NO:
J137-3221
CORRESPONDENT E-
MAIL ADDRESS:
pbucci@notaromichalos.com
OFFICE ACTION
STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S
COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW. A RESPONSE
TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE
MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 12/21/2017

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to
the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION
The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no similar registered
marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). However, a mark in a prior-filed
pending application may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark.
The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87328954 precedes applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced application. If the
mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a
likelihood of confusion between the two marks. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of
applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced
application.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict
between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits
applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
U.S. APPLICANT ASSERTS SECTION 44 BASIS
Applicant is domiciled in the United States and has asserted a Trademark Act Section 44(e) filing basis in its application. See 15 U.S.C.
§1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3). However, an applicant domiciled in the United States is generally not eligible to register a mark under Section
44(e) unless the applicant (1) owns a trademark registration from a foreign country that is a party to a treaty or agreement relating to trademarks
to which the United States is also a party or extends reciprocal rights to nationals of the United States, and (2) can establish that the foreign
country in which the trademark is registered is the applicant’s country of origin. 15 U.S.C. §1126(b)-(c); see TMEP §§1002.03-.05. “Country
of origin” refers to a country other than the United States in which an applicant has a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial
establishment, or if there is no such establishment, the foreign country in which an applicant is domiciled. 15 U.S.C. §1126(c); TMEP §1002.04-
.05.
If applicant intends to rely on Section 44(e) as a basis for registration, applicant must submit the following:
(1) A true copy, photocopy, certification or certified copy of the foreign trademark registration upon which applicant is relying for U.S.
registration, along with an English translation if the foreign registration certificate is not written in English. See 15 U.S.C. §1126(e);
37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§1002.05, 1004 et seq. If applicant submits a copy of the foreign registration, it must be a copy of
a document that has been issued to the applicant by or certified by the intellectual property office in the applicant’s country of origin.
TMEP §1004.01; and
(2) A written statement that applicant has a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the foreign country in
which its mark is registered. See 15 U.S.C. §1126(c); TMEP §§1002.01, 1002.04-.05.
If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements for a Section 44(e) basis, applicant can amend the application to substitute a Section 1(a) or
Section 1(b) basis, if applicant can satisfy all of the requirements for the new basis. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)-(b), 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b),
TMEP §806.03.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the precise nature of the goods is unclear. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6);
TMEP §1402.01. Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: Bacon serving trays; Cookware, namely, bacon racks for use
in microwave ovens; bacon cookware, namely, {indicate types of cookware, e.g., pans}.
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services
beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Generally, any deleted goods
and/or services may not later be reinserted. See TMEP §1402.07(e).
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S.
Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
DISCLAIMER REQUIRED
Applicant must disclaim the wording “ BACON” because it merely describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or
use of applicant’s goods, and thus is an unregistrable component of the mark. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); DuoProSS Meditech Corp.
v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d
1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
This wording appears in applicant’s identification of goods. Therefore, the wording merely describes a feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s
goods.
An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms that others may need to use to describe their goods and/or services in the marketplace. See
Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825
(TTAB 1983). A disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove
the disclaimed matter from the mark. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP
§1213.
If applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark. See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d
1039, 1040-41, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1088-89 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b).
Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “ BACON” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this disclaimer requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application
System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/disclaimer.jsp.
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-
mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to
this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this
Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02,
709.06.
TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Applicants who filed their application
online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to
Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address;
and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b),
2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820. TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of
$125 per class of goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04. However, in certain situations,
TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without
incurring this additional fee.
/Barbara Rutland/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
USPTO
Phone: 571-272-9311
Fax: 571-273-9101
barbara.rutland@USPTO.gov
TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. Please wait 48-72 hours from the
issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.
For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
trademark examining attorney. E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
this Office action by e-mail.
All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE: It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an
applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants). If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
response.
PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official
notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/. Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the
Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199. For more information on checking
status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

To: E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. (pbucci@notaromichalos.com)

Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 87608597 - BACON BONANZA - J137-3221
Sent: 12/21/2017 7:47:32 PM
Sent As: ECOM101@USPTO.GOV
Attachments:
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 12/21/2017 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87608597
Please follow the instructions below:
(1) TO READ THE LETTER: Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov, enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on
“Documents.”
The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24
hours of this e-mail notification.
(2) TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable
response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from 12/21/2017 (or sooner if specified in the Office action). A response
transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the
response period. For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.
Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as
responses to Office actions. Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.
(3) QUESTIONS: For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney. For
technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail
TSDR@uspto.gov.
WARNING
Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application. For
more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.
PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION: Private companies not associated with the USPTO are
using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations. These companies often use names that
closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document. Many solicitations require that you pay
“fees.”
Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document
from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation. All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States
Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.” For more information on how to handle
private company solicitations, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
*** User:brutland ***

# Total Dead Live Live Status/ Search
Marks Marks Viewed Viewed Search
Docs Images Duration
01 231 N/A 0 0 0:03 "E Mishan & Sons"[ow]
02 4 1 3 2 0:03 1 AND (*B{V}{"ckqx"}{V}N*[bi,ti] *B{V}N{V}N{"szc"}{V}*[bi,ti])
03 3 N/A 0 0 0:02 *B{V}{"ckqx"}{V}N*[bi,ti] and *B{V}N{V}N{"szc"}{V}*[bi,ti]
04 17 N/A 0 0 0:05 *B{V}${"ckqx"}{V}N*[bi,ti] and *B{V}$N{V}N${"szc"}{V}*[bi,ti]
05 9 N/A 0 0 0:02 *B{V}{"ckqx"}${V}N*[bi,ti] and *B{V}$N{V}N${"szc"}{V}*[bi,ti]
06 475 N/A 0 0 0:02 *B{V}$N{V}N${"szc"}{V}*[bi,ti]
07 351 N/A 0 0 0:02 *B{V}N{V}N{"szc"}{V}*[bi,ti]
08 333 N/A 0 0 0:01 *BON{V}N{"szc"}{V}*[bi,ti]
09 334 N/A 0 0 0:01 *BONAN{"szc"}*[bi,ti]
10 4 0 4 4 0:01 (3 4 5) not (2 dead[ld])
11 143 0 45 143 0:01 (6 7 8 9) not (2 10 dead[ld])
12 5 0 5 5 0:01 (10 11) and "021"[ic]
13 1 0 1 1 P/0:02 1 and bacon[gs]
14 13 8 5 4 P/0:02 1 and (tray rack)[gs]
15 10 6 4 3 P/0:01 "bacon rack"[gs]
Session started 12/21/2017 4:31:13 PM

Session finished 12/21/2017 8:10:01 PM
Total search duration 0 minutes 29 seconds
Session duration 218 minutes 48 seconds
Defaut NEAR limit=1ADJ limit=1
Sent to TICRS as Serial Number: 87608597

From: TMOFFICIALNOTICES@USPTO.GOV
Sent: Thu Dec 21 16:44:34 EST 2017
To: pbucci@notaromichalos.com
Subject: Official USPTO Notice of Acceptance of AAU: U.S. Trademark SN 87608597 : BACON BONANZA: Docket/Reference No. J137-
3221
NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDMENT TO ALLEGE USE
U.S. Serial Number: 87608597

Mark: BACON BONANZA
Owner: E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.
Docket/Reference Number: J137-3221
The USPTO has accepted the Amendment to Allege Use (AAU) filed for the trademark application identified above as meeting the minimum
filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76(e). The application was returned to the examining attorney for a substantive review of the AAU, which
may result in the issuance of a refusal and/or additional requirement(s).
WARNING: The filing of the AAU does not relieve the applicant of the duty to file a response to any outstanding Office action or to take any
other action required in the case, including filing a Notice of Appeal.
To check the status of the application, go to

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87608597&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch or contact the Trademark Assistance
Center at 1-800-786-9199. Please check the status of the application at least every three (3) months after the application filing date.
To view this notice and other documents for this application on-line, go to
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87608597&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=documentSearch. NOTE: This notice will only become
available on-line the next business day after receipt of this e-mail.
For further information, including information on filing and maintenance requirements for U.S. trademark applications and registrations and
required fees, please consult the USPTO website at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/ or contact the Trademark Assistance Center at 1-800-
786-9199.
Exhibit 10
Liza M. Walsh Robert T. Maldonado (admitted pro hac vice)

Hector D. Ruiz Tonia A. Sayour
Katelyn O’Reilly Laura A. Alos (admitted pro hac vice)
Joseph L. Linares COOPER & DUNHAM LLP
WALSH PIZZI O’REILLY FALANGA LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza
One Riverfront Plaza New York, NY 10112
1037 Raymond Boulevard, Suite 600 (212) 278-0400
Newark, NJ 07102
(973) 757-1100
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
TELEBRANDS CORP., PROMETHEUS

BRANDS, LLC and A2 PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT, INC., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-03323
(ES/SCM)
Plaintiffs,
v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
E. MISHAN & SONS, INC., GOTHAM

STEEL LLC and MARVIN LEVY, Electronically Filed
Defendants.
I, Liza M. Walsh, hereby certify that on the date set forth below, I caused a true and correct
copy of the following documents submitted on behalf of Plaintiffs Telebrands Corp., Prometheus
Brands LLC, and A2 Product Development, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to be electronically
filed and served via the Court’s electronic filing system on the Office of the Clerk, United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50
Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey:
• First Amended Complaint with Exhibits 1-10 annexed thereto;

• AO120 Form; and
• This Certificate of Service.
I further certify that, on the date set forth below, I caused a true and correct copy of the
foregoing documents to be served via the Court’s electronic filing system upon all parties
registered to receive electronic filings.
I certify that the foregoing is true and correct. I am aware that if any of the foregoing
statements made by me are willingly false, that I am subject to punishment.
Dated: May 3, 2018 s/Liza M. Walsh

Liza M. Walsh

Telebrands v. E. Mishan &amp; Sons - 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

Telebrands v. E. Mishan &amp; Sons - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:18-cv-03323-ES-SCM Document 39 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 31 PageID: 452

Robert T. Maldonado (admitted pro hac vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

TELEBRANDS CORP., PROMETHEUS

Plaintiffs, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

E. MISHAN & SONS, INC., GOTHAM Electronically Filed

Plaintiffs Telebrands Corp. (“Telebrands”), Prometheus Brands, LLC (“Prometheus”), and

Marvin Levy (“Levy”) (collectively, “Defendants”) allege as follows:

Product Development Inc. sometimes does business as “A2 Inc.”

New Jersey 07647.

6. Defendant Levy is an individual residing, on information and belief, at 8 Pineview

Terrace, Montvale, New Jersey 07645. Levy is a principal at Gotham Steel.

actions as described herein.

consent of the other.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMS, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ BACON BONANZA, PANCAKE BONANZA,

1332(a)(1) and 1338(a) and (b).

of New Jersey through their website, https://muffinbonanza.com/ and http://pancakebonanza.com,

and have committed tortious acts in the State of New Jersey.

(c), and 1400(b).

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

RELEVANT BACKGROUND OF TELEBRANDS/PROMETHEUS

retail sales through its nationwide advertising programs.

21. Prometheus is a company that owns intellectual property licensed to Telebrands.

Oneida, Wilton, Samsung and Bakelicious brands.

into a formal agreement, for example, a licensing agreement.

part removable cupcake pan is shown below.

confidential license agreement dated March 5, 2018.

THE BROWNIE BONANZA TRADEMARK

BONANZA product, accessible at https://www.browniebonanza.com/.

BROWNIE BONANZA U.S. Trademark Registration certificate. This trademark registration is

valid and subsisting.

29. Telebrands is the exclusive licensee of the BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark.

31. Telebrands invested a significant amount of money in manufacturing the BROWNIE

32. The BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark has acquired secondary meaning.

33. Telebrands’ advertising and promotion highlights the BROWNIE BONANZA

the source or origin of Telebrands’ products.

TELEBRANDS’ MUFFIN MAN PRODUCT

Telebrands’ MUFFIN MAN PRODUCT, which is distributed to prospective buyers.

Housewares Show in Chicago, Illinois.

TELEBRANDS’ ORGREENIC FLIP JACK PRODUCT

of Telebrands’ ORGREENIC FLIP JACK Product.

D’008 patent. The D’008 patent is valid and subsisting.

2013 and was aware of the D’008 patent.

DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGEMENT OF THE BROWNIE BONANZA TRADEMARK

43. Telebrands directly competes with several companies in the As Seen On TV

Gotham Steel work closely together and collaborate on many products.

BONANZA (“the MUFFIN BONANZA Product”).

policy of Emson evidencing that the https://muffinbonanza.com, website is Emson’s. Attached as

BONANZA product”) that enables users to make pancakes.

purchase on Defendants’ website, https://pancakebonanza.com.

policy of Emson, evidencing that the http://pancakebonanza.com website is Emson’s. Attached as

sale, and/or sold through Defendants’ website, www.buybaconbonanza.com.

privacy policy of Emson, evidencing that the www.buybaconbonanza.com website is Emson’s.

58. The MUFFIN BONANZA, PANCAKE BONANZA, and BACON BONANZA

and sold to consumers through the same channels of trade.

no authority to use Telebrands’ and Prometheus’ BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark or any

confusingly similar mark.

60. Upon learning of Defendants’ BACON BONANZA and MUFFIN BONANZA

desist from infringing the BROWNIE BONANZA Trademark.

or selling the BACON BONANZA and/or MUFFIN BONANZA Products.

used the word BONANZA.

Telebrands v. E. Mishan & Sons - Complaint

Telebrands v. E. Mishan & Sons - Complaint