GMYL v. Peter Coppola Beauty - Coppola Trademark Complaint PDF

Case 3:15-cv-03724-VC Document 9 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
K&L GATES LLP

4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 882-8200
Facsimile: (415) 882-8220
Susan E. Hollander (SBN 133473)
susan.hollander@klgates.com
Sharoni S. Finkelstein (SBN 271829)
sharoni.finkelstein@klgates.com
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 552-5000
Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
Seth A. Gold (SBN 163220)
seth.gold@klgates.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
GMYL, L.P.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
OAKLAND DIVISION
14
15
GMYL, L.P., a California limited partnership,

Plaintiff,
16
17
18
19
20
21
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-03724-KAW

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
vs.
(1)
PETER COPPOLA BEAUTY LLC, a Delaware (2)

limited liability company; PETER COPPOLA, an
individual; COPOMON ENTERPRISES, LLC
dba KERATIN COMPLEX, a Florida limited
liability company; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, (3)
Defendants.
(4)
22
(5)
23
(6)
24
FEDERAL TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT (15 U.S.C. 1114)
FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION
AND FALSE DESIGNATION OF
ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION
(15 U.S.C. 1125(c))
STATE UNFAIR COMPETITION (CAL.
BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200)
COMMON LAW TRADEMARK
INFRINGEMENT
COMMON LAW UNFAIR
COMPETITION
25
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
26
27
28
1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 3:15-cv-03724-KAW
Plaintiff GMYL, L.P. (Plaintiff), for its First Amended Complaint against Defendants Peter
Coppola Beauty LLC (PCB), Peter Coppola (Peter Coppola), and Copomon Enterprises, LLC
dba Keratin Complex (Copomon) (collectively, Defendants), alleges the following:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
Since at least as early as 1979, Plaintiff and its predecessors in interest, affiliates, and
licensees have continuously and pervasively used COPPOLA in connection with film production and
distribution services. 1 Since at least as early as 1990, Plaintiff has continuously and pervasively used
COPPOLA on and in connection with premium wine, and thereafter for a broad variety of related
goods including gourmet Italian food products, wine accessories, home dcor, and personal products,
10
and hotels and resorts where Plaintiff also provides and/or offers for sale a variety of luxury products
11
including shampoos, conditioners, soaps, and lotions. Collectively, Plaintiffs such use of
12
COPPOLA alone and/or together with other elements is referred to herein as the COPPOLA
13
Brand.
14
2.
Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand is famous. The COPPOLA-brand wine, food products,
15
and hotel and resort services have received numerous accolades over the years including Wine
16
Enthusiasts Annual Wine Star Awards, Decanter World Wine Awards, and American Wine Awards,
17
and have received unsolicited media attention including in such publications as Forbes, The New
18
York Times, Food & Wine, Wine Spectator, Luxury Travel Magazine, Eluxe Magazine, and the Los
19
Angeles Times. Plaintiff sells its COPPOLA-brand products through multiple channelsincluding
20
on its well-known website located at www.francisfordcoppolawinery.com, and in grocery stores,
21
chain and independent restaurants, non-grocery retailers, and hospitality and service venues
22
displaying the COPPOLA Brand in a predominant manner.
23
3.
Plaintiffs widespread use of COPPOLA is supported by its numerous trademark
24
registrations that consist of or incorporate COPPOLA. Plaintiffs trademark registrations for
25
COPPOLA are prima facie evidence of Plaintiffs exclusive rights to the marks. As a result of the
26
extensive national advertisement and promotion of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand in a wide variety of
27
28
For purposes of this Complaint, all references to Plaintiffs use of COPPOLA shall refer to use of
COPPOLA by Plaintiff and its predecessors in interest, affiliates, and/or licensees.
1
publications, unsolicited media attention, and sale of Plaintiffs COPPOLA-brand goods and services
through multiple channels, consumers nationwide have come to associate COPPOLA solely with
Plaintiff and its lines of high-quality luxury products. In short, the COPPOLA Brand is an asset of
substantial value to Plaintiff and a symbol of Plaintiffs goodwill.
4.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Peter Coppola is a self-described hair stylist,
salon owner, and businessman who has worked in the hair care industry for over a decade. Upon
information and belief, Peter Coppola has formed and played an integral role in the promotional and
branding activities of a number of businesses that sell goods in the hair care industry, which
businesses traditionally have used the trademark PETER COPPOLA. On November 3, 2006, Peter
10
Coppola filed a trademark application for the composite mark PETER COPPOLA for hair care
11
preparations, namely, shampoos, conditioners, oils, lotions, nourishers; hair styling preparations,
12
namely, pomades, hair spray, mousse, hair gel, foam, glaze, texturing jelly, hair color, hair color
13
removers, hair rinses and hair relaxers in International Class 3 and related services in International
14
Class 44, which alleged a date of first use of the Class 3 goods of December 22, 2000. Recently,
15
however, and as described more particularly herein, certain of the companies with which Peter
16
Coppola has been integrally involved have shifted from the trademark known as PETER
17
COPPOLA to a trademark that emphasizes just the word COPPOLA, thereby infringing Plaintiffs
18
famous COPPOLA Brand.
19
5.
One of the companies formed by Peter Coppola to sell products in the hair care
20
industry is Defendant Copomon Enterprises, LLC (Copomon). Upon information and belief, Peter
21
Coppola formed Copomon in or around June 2007 and, from that time through at least October 2011,
22
was its manager. Upon information and belief, Copomon currently sells hair care products which
23
feature the word COPPOLA as the brand name (the Copomon Infringing COPPOLA Mark).
24
Copomons predominant stand-alone use of COPPOLA is likely to cause consumer confusion with
25
respect to, and is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of, Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand and the
26
COPPOLA Family of Marks.
27
28
6.
In or around January 2013, Peter Coppola founded another company, named Peter
Coppola Beauty, LLC (PCB), and assigned the PETER COPPOLA trademarkincluding the
2
PETER COPPOLA registration, and all abbreviations and derivations of PETER COPPOLAto
PCB. Upon information and belief, Peter Coppola was PCBs Chief Executive Officer and one of its
managing members since its inception and until at least April 2014, and also was the Creative and
Artistic Director for PCB until at least the summer of 2015. Upon information and belief, since at
least its inception, PCB also used the combined name PETER COPPOLA as a brand for its hair care
products, making equally prominent use of PETER and COPPOLA. However, upon information
and belief, PCB and Peter Coppola recently began minimizing the use of PETER, and instead
prominently emphasize COPPOLA as a stand-alone brand. (Hereafter, the stand-alone trademark
COPPOLA used by PCB and Peter Coppola is referred to as the PCB Infringing COPPOLA
10
Mark.) In fact, in April 2014, and while Peter Coppola was a manager, PCB filed a United States
11
Trademark Application for the stand alone COPPOLA trademark in connection with hair care
12
preparations. On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition against the application for the PCB
13
Infringing COPPOLA Mark with the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB),
14
because it is likely to cause confusion with the COPPOLA Brand. PCB then withdrew its application
15
for the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark, and on August 22, 2015, judgment was entered against
16
PCB and Plaintiffs opposition was sustained. Notwithstanding, PCB continues to use the PCB
17
Infringing COPPOLA Mark, necessitating this action. Upon information and belief, Peter Coppola
18
personally authorized, directed, and/or participated in PCBs use of the PCB Infringing COPPOLA
19
Mark. Given PCBs predominant stand-alone use of COPPOLA, consumer confusion is inevitable,
20
as is the dilution of the distinctive quality of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand.
21
7.
The Lanham Act prohibits confusing use of a trademark even where the trademark that
22
a defendant is using is defendants surname. Defendants promoted and advertised, and continue to
23
promote and advertise their respective hair care products under the infringing marks, as set forth
24
herein. By this action, Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to prevent consumer confusion regarding
25
the source of Defendants respective goods and services, and to prevent the dilution of the distinctive
26
quality of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand.
27
28
3
THE PARTIES
8.
Plaintiff is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of
California with a principal place of business located at 916 Kearny Street, San Francisco, California
94133.
9.
Defendant Peter Coppola is an individual who, upon information and belief resides in
Parkland, Florida. Upon information and belief, Peter Coppola was a Manager of PCB from its
inception in 2013 through at least April 2014. In addition, upon information and belief, Peter
Coppola has also held ownership interests in PCB, at least indirectly, since PCBs inception. Upon
information and belief, Peter Coppola was the Chief Executive Officer of PCB and has been the
10
Creative and Artistic Director for PCB until at least the summer of 2015. Upon information and
11
belief, Peter Coppola was a manager of Copomon from June 2007 through at least October 2011.
12
10.
Defendant Peter Coppola Beauty LLC is a limited liability company formed under the
13
laws of the State of Delaware and, upon information and belief, its principal place of business is
14
located at 7000 West Camino Real, Suite 240, Boca Raton, Florida 33433.
15
11.
Defendant Copomon Enterprises, LLC dba Keratin Complex is a limited liability
16
company formed under the laws of the State of Florida and, upon information and belief, its principal
17
place of business is located at 6400 Congress Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida 33847.
18
12.
Plaintiff is currently unaware of the identities of defendants Does 110, and therefore
19
sues such defendants by such fictitious pseudonyms. Upon information and belief, discovery will
20
reveal the true identities of those defendants and Plaintiff will then amend this Complaint to identify
21
those defendants by name.
22
13.
Upon information and belief, at relevant times herein there existed a unity of interest
23
and ownership between and among the Peter Coppola and PCB, such that any individuality and
24
separateness between and among them has ceased to exist, and they are the alter egos of each other.
25
Upon information and belief, at material times herein, each of PCB and Peter Coppola was the agent,
26
employee, partner, or representative of each of the other, and each has or at relevant times had the
27
authority to bind the other in transactions with third parties. Upon information and belief, each of
28
PCB and Peter Coppola committed acts and omissions leading to Plaintiffs damages, was acting in
4
concert and active participation with each other in committing the wrongful acts alleged herein, and
in so doing acted within the scope and course of their agency with the other and each of them
authorized, directed, accepted, ratified, and approved of such actions.
4
5
JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

14.
Jurisdiction. This action arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. and
contains related California statutory and common law claims. This Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338, as this is an action arising under
the laws of the United States and relating to trademarks. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over the state and common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, as those claims are part of the
10
11
same case or controversy as the federal claims herein.

15.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each defendant has
12
directed tortious acts at Plaintiff in this District, and has committed tortious acts that they knew or
13
should have known would cause injury to Plaintiff in this District.
14
16.
Defendants contacts with this District are systematic and continuous. Upon
15
information and belief, Defendants have offered and/or sold, have authorized and participated in the
16
offering and sale of, and/or continue to offer and/or sell, products bearing the infringing COPPOLA
17
marks in the Northern District of California. For example, among other things, PCBs products
18
bearing the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark are offered for sale (i) at beauty supply retailers located
19
in the Northern District of California, including in the County of San Francisco, (ii) on PCBs
20
website located at www.petercoppola.com, (iii) through third-party online retail stores including eBay
21
and Amazon.com, and (iv) at and through hair salons located in the Northern District of California,
22
including in the County of San Francisco. In addition, PCB has widely advertised, and continues to
23
widely advertise, its products bearing the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Marks through a variety of
24
national forums, including for example YouTube, which is located in this District. At relevant times,
25
including currently, upon information and belief, Peter Coppola has authorized, directed, and/or
26
personally participated in PCBs use of the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark, as was shown on the
27
www.petercoppola.com website, which prominently featured Peter Coppola until at least September
28
10, 2015. Similarly, Copomons products bearing the Copomon Infringing COPPOLA Mark are
5
offered for sale (i) at beauty supply retailers, drug stores, and department stores located in the
Northern District of California, including in the County of San Francisco, (ii) on Copomons website
located at www.keratincomplex.com, and (iii) through third-party online retail stores including eBay
and Amazon.com. Upon information and belief, consumers in this District have in fact purchased
Defendants hair care products bearing the Infringing COPPOLA Mark.
17.
Venue/Intradistrict Assignment. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California
and assignment to the San Francisco Division of said district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1391(a) as a substantial portion of the activities giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred within the
County of San Francisco, California, and Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this
10
District, as set forth in Paragraphs 15 and 16 herein.
11
12
13
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.
The COPPOLA Family of Marks

18.
The COPPOLA Family of Marks consists of numerous uses of COPPOLA as a brand
14
for a wide variety of products. Since at least as early as 1990, Plaintiff has developed and
15
continuously used the COPPOLA Brand in connection with wines. Since that time, Plaintiff has
16
continued to expand its use of COPPOLA in connection with a wide variety of luxury products and
17
services. For example, Plaintiff has continuously and pervasively used the COPPOLA mark on or in
18
connection with gourmet food products since at least as early as 1998, restaurant services since at
19
least as early as 1999, retail store services and online retail store services in the fields of wines, wine
20
accessories, home dcor, and related products since at least as early as 2007, and luxury hotel and
21
resort lodging services since at least as early as 2006. Plaintiff offers a wide variety of COPPOLA-
22
brand personal care products such as sunscreen, towels, clothing, notebooks, and luggage tags.
23
Plaintiff also provides and/or offers for sale a variety of luxury products at its hotels and resorts,
24
including for example shampoos, conditioners, soaps, and lotions. FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA
25
PRESENTS is described in Wikipedia as a lifestyle brand created by Francis Ford Coppola, under
26
which he markets goods from companies he owns or controls. True and correct copies of
27
representative samples of the product labels showing Plaintiffs use of the COPPOLA Brand are
28
attached hereto as Exhibit A.

6
1
2
19.
The common element of each mark in the COPPOLA Family of Marks is the
dominant use and/or display of COPPOLAthat is, the COPPOLA Brand.
20.
The following is a list of Plaintiffs trademark registrations that consist of or
incorporate COPPOLA, which are marks registered with the USPTO, are members of the COPPOLA
Family of Marks, and display the COPPOLA Brand (collectively, the COPPOLA Registrations):
Mark
Registration No.
Intl Class
COPPOLA
4,630,555
33
COPPOLA
4,612,559
29, 30
COPPOLA
4,735,415
24
COPPOLA
4,735,416
30
COPPOLA
3,960,035
43
FRANCIS COPPOLA
2,150,945
33
12
FRANCIS COPPOLA PRESENTS
2,467,249
29, 30
13
FRANCIS COPPOLA PRESENTS THE DIRECTORS SERIES
2,721,301
34
14
FRANCIS COPPOLA SELECTS
2,702,129
30
FRANCIS COPPOLA SOFIA
4,440,932
33
FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA DIRECTORS CUT
3,510,021
33
10
11
15
16
FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS
3,628,961
35
17
FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS
1,934,649
41
18
FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS ROSSO & BIANCO
3,571,511
35
19
FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS ROSSO & BIANCO
3,665,584
33
20
FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS WINE FOOD

ADVENTURE & Design
3,628,962
35
21
FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS WINE FOOD

ADVENTURE & Design
3,846,677
43
FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA WINERY
4,738,056
33
SOFIA BLANC DE BLANCS FRANCIS COPPOLA & Design
3,526,536
33
SOFIA RIESLING MONTEREY COUNTY FRANCIS

COPPOLA
4,337,422
33
SOFIA ROS FRANCIS COPPOLA & Design
3,526,537
33
22
23
24
25
26
27
The above-described registrations are valid and subsisting in full force, unrevoked, and uncancelled.
28
True and correct copies of the registration certificates for the above marks are attached hereto as
7
Exhibit B.
21.
Notably, Registration Nos.1934649, 2150945, 2467249, 2702129, 2721301, and
3510021 are incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1065.
22.
The COPPOLA Family of Marks also includes unregistered markssuch as the
COPPOLA markin which Plaintiff claims common law trademark rights, including in California
and throughout the United States.
7
8
9
23.
Plaintiff also owns the following applications for federal registration for marks that are
members of the COPPOLA Family of Marks, and thus further support the COPPOLA Brand:
Mark
Application No.
Intl Class
10
COPPOLA
86/481,296
43
11
COPPOLA
86/481,287
18
12
COPPOLA
86/481,285
21
COPPOLA
86/481,295
34
COPPOLA
86/481,292
25
COPPOLA
86/481,284
16
15
COPPOLA
86/481,283
16
COPPOLA
86/481,282
17
COPPOLA ROSSO & BIANCO
85/576,727
33
ELEANOR COPPOLA SELECTS
86/320,132
29, 30
THE FAMILY COPPOLA
86/405,396
33
13
14
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
True and correct copies of the trademark applications for the above marks are attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
24.
Plaintiff has marketed, promoted, advertised, and sold goods and services under the
COPPOLA Family of Marks together, prominently displaying the COPPOLA Brand in wineries,
grocery stores, websites, restaurants, drug stores, wholesale warehouse stores, department stores,
home-goods stores, and other venues.
25.
Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand has been the subject of substantial promotion and
unsolicited media attention, including without limitation coverage by and/or reference on

abcnews.com, cbsnews.com, The New York Times, Food & Wine, Entertainment Tonight, the Today
Show, the Academy Awards, Wall Street Journal News Hub, NewYorkLiveTV.com, Aspen Wine and
8
Food Festival, Forbes.com, Wall Street Journal SpeakEasy blog, Wine Spectator, Luxury Travel
Magazine, Eluxe Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times. In 2014 alone, this unsolicited media
garnered over 2.7 billion impressions. Further, sales of goods bearing the COPPOLA Brand
throughout the nation have been in the billions of dollars since 1996. Such promotion, media
attention, and sales render the COPPOLA Family of Marks distinctive and famous, as each member
of the COPPOLA Family of Marks incorporates the word COPPOLA to signal to consumers that the
mark is a member of the COPPOLA Family of Marks and comes from the same source. For the same
reason, Plaintiffs COPPOLA trademark has garnered significant secondary meaning.
26.
The distinctiveness of the COPPOLA Brand is evidenced by its widespread secondary
10
meaning in the marketplace. Plaintiff has expended significant time, money, and efforts in promoting
11
its COPPOLA Brand, including joint marketing and sales of goods and services sold under the
12
various members of the COPPOLA Family of Marks. The use of the COPPOLA Brand in each
13
member of the COPPOLA Family of Marks, as well as the combined promotion and offering for sale
14
of various luxury goods and services that contain the COPPOLA Brand, conveys to consumers a
15
common source and that the mark is a member of the valuable and famous COPPOLA Family of
16
Marks. See Exhibit A.
17
27.
Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand is famous. Due to the national advertisement and
18
promotion of the COPPOLA Brand and the COPPOLA Family of Marks, consumers nationwide have
19
come to recognize the COPPOLA Brand and the COPPOLA Family of Marks as symbolizing the
20
goodwill inherent in these marks and associate these marks and the COPPOLA Brand solely with
21
Plaintiff and its high quality products and services.
22
23
28.
Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand and COPPOLA Family of Marks have also received
considerable favorable press and media attention.
24
29.
Plaintiff vigorously polices its COPPOLA Brand and COPPOLA Family of Marks and
25
enforces its rights therein.
26
B.
27
28
PCBs and Peter Coppolas Infringing Conduct

30.
On November 3, 2006, Peter Coppola filed a trademark application for the composite
mark PETER COPPOLA for hair care preparations, namely, shampoos, conditioners, oils, lotions,
9
nourishers; hair styling preparations, namely, pomades, hair spray, mousse, hair gel, foam, glaze,
texturing jelly, hair color removers, hair rinses and hair relaxers in International Class 3 and related
services in International Class 44, which alleged a date of first use of the Class 3 goods of December
22, 2000. A true and correct copy of the specimen of use Peter Coppola submitted to the Trademark
Office depicting the use made of PETER COPPOLA since 2000 is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
31.
Upon information and belief, in or around January 2013, Peter Coppola founded PCB,
was its Chief Executive Officer, and one of its managing members. Upon information and belief,
Peter Coppola was also the Creative and Artistic Director for PCB until at least the summer of 2015.
Upon information and belief, PCB was formed to sell products in the hair care industry, among other
10
11
things.
32.
Upon information and belief, Peter Coppola assigned the PETER COPPOLA
12
trademarkincluding the PETER COPPOLA registration (United States Trademark Registration No.
13
3,287,456), and all abbreviations and derivations of PETER COPPOLAto PCB on or around
14
January 25, 2013, the same day PCB was formed. Upon information and belief, PCB used the brand
15
name PETER COPPOLA, making equally prominent use of PETER and COPPOLA on and in
16
connection with the hair care products it advertised and sold. A true and correct copy of the
17
specimen of use Peter Coppola submitted to the Trademark Office in or around February 2013, after
18
the PETER COPPOLA mark was assigned to PCB, depicting the use made of PETER COPPOLA is
19
attached hereto as Exhibit E.
20
33.
Upon information and belief, well after Plaintiffs first use of the COPPOLA Brand in
21
the United States, and well after Peter Coppola and PCB had been using the PETER COPPOLA
22
name as the brand for hair care products, PCB amended product labels, packaging, and promotional
23
and advertising materials for its hair care products by minimizing its use of PETER and
24
emphasizing COPPOLA as the stand-alone brand.
25
34.
On or around April 10, 2014, while Peter Coppola was a manager of PCB, PCB filed a
26
United States Trademark Application for the Infringing COPPOLA Mark based on use in commerce
27
in connection with hair care preparations. Upon information and belief, because Peter Coppola
28
was a manager of PCB, he therefore approved, facilitated, and/or participated in the decision for PCB
10
to file such application. A true and correct copy of PCBs COPPOLA trademark application is
attached hereto as Exhibit F.
3
4
5
6
7
35.
Upon learning of the application, on August 5, 2014, Plaintiff advised PCB in writing
of its prior and senior rights in the COPPOLA Family of Marks.

36.
On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition against PCBs United States
Trademark Application for the Infringing COPPOLA Mark with the TTAB.
37.
On July 30, 2015, PCB filed with the TTAB an express withdrawal of its application
for the Infringing COPPOLA Mark, and on August 22, 2015, judgment was entered against PCB and
Plaintiffs opposition was sustained. True and correct copies of the Applicants Withdrawal of
10
11
Application and the TTAB order are attached hereto as Exhibits GH, respectively.
38.
Notwithstanding PCBs withdrawal of its application to register the Infringing
12
COPPOLA Mark, and despite Plaintiffs objection and actual notice of Plaintiffs prior senior rights,
13
PCB continues to use the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark. True and correct copies of
14
representative samples of the product labels and a screenshot of a Google Ad showing PCBs use of
15
the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark are attached hereto as Exhibit I. Peter Coppola has actively
16
encouraged, promoted, authorized, and/or facilitated PCBs use of the PCB Infringing COPPOLA
17
Mark. Upon information and belief, as the founder and manager of PCB, including when PCB filed
18
its application for registration of the standalone COPPOLA trademark, Peter Coppola had a direct
19
and active role in PCBs decision to use in commerce the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark. Upon
20
information and belief, Peter Coppola approved and participated in his being featured on PCBs
21
website, located at www.petercoppola.com, as the spokesperson for PCBs hair product line,
22
including the products that bear the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark. In addition, upon information
23
and belief, until at least September 10, 2015, Peter Coppolas photo was prominently featured on
24
PCBs website located at www.petercoppola.com, and Peter Coppola was described on that website
25
as The Man Behind the Keratin Revolution. Attached hereto at Exhibit J is a true and correct copy
26
of PCBs website. In fact, on information and belief, Peter Coppola stated in a 2013 interview that
27
PCB is his legacy. Im the man behind this brand, and also serve as the companys creative and
28
artistic director. I love the fact that Im hands on. . . . (emphasis added). Attached hereto at Exhibit
11
K is a true and correct copy of the American Salon magazine article featuring this 2013 interview. In
addition, upon information and belief, as recently as June 2015, Peter Coppola has appeared at
international trade shows on behalf of PCB, where he has promoted PCBs products, which include
those products bearing the PCB Infringing Coppola Mark. Further, as recently as June 2015, Peter
Coppola has encouraged, participated in, and/or authorized the use of variations of the PCB
Infringing COPPOLA Mark, such as the brand Coppola Crew.
C.
Copomons Infringing Conduct

39.
Upon information and belief, at least through October 2011, Peter Coppola was a
manager of Copomon, during which time he helped launch Copomons hair care products. Upon
10
information and belief, well after Plaintiffs first use of the COPPOLA Brand in the United States,
11
Copomon began promoting and selling hair care products which predominantly feature COPPOLA as
12
the brand name.
13
40.
Upon information and belief, Copomons product labels, packaging, and promotional
14
and advertising materials for its hair care products prominently use COPPOLA as the stand-alone
15
brand of their hair care products. True and correct copies of representative samples of the product
16
labels showing Copomons use of the Infringing COPPOLA Mark are attached hereto as Exhibit L.
17
Upon information and belief, Copomon uses and has used the Copomon Infringing COPPOLA Mark
18
pursuant to a license agreement from Peter Coppola.
19
D.
20
Family of Marks
21
41.
Defendants Infringement of the COPPOLA Brand and Dilution of the COPPOLA
Defendants use of the infringing COPPOLA marks creates a similar commercial
22
impression to Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand. Consumers are accustomed to seeing the COPPOLA
23
Brand used by Plaintiff in connection with the marketing and sale of a wide variety of wine, food,
24
hotel and restaurant services, and related products and services. Likewise, consumers are accustomed
25
to seeing Plaintiffs COPPOLA-brand products in a variety of venues including, for example, in
26
grocery, drug, and department stores such as Safeway, CVS, Walgreens, and Targetthe same
27
venues at and through which Defendants sell their respective hair care products under the infringing
28
COPPOLA marks. Consumers thus are likely to assume that the infringing COPPOLA marks are
12
related to Plaintiffs famous luxury consumer goods from wine and specialty foods to hotel and resort
service, and thus part of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand or part of the COPPOLA Family of Marks.
42.
Defendants began using in United States commerce the infringing COPPOLA marks
in connection with their respective hair care products in commerce in the United States subsequent to
Plaintiffs use of its famous and distinctive COPPOLA Brand in commerce in the United States. As
set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 18 above, Plaintiff began using the COPPOLA Brand in connection
with wine since at least as early as 1990, and Plaintiff is therefore the prior and senior user of the
COPPOLA mark.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10
(Federal Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. 1114)
11
(Against all Defendants)
12
13
43.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein paragraphs 1
through 42, inclusive.
14
44.
For nearly twenty five years, Plaintiff has developed and continuously used the
15
COPPOLA Family of Marks. The COPPOLA Family of Marks includes the federal trademark
16
registrations shown in Exhibit B hereto, and the concomitant use of such registered trademarks.
17
Common to all members of the COPPOLA Family of Marks is the incorporation of the word
18
COPPOLA, which is also known as the COPPOLA Brand.
19
45.
By virtue of its ownership of the COPPOLA Family of Marks (each of which
20
incorporates the COPPOLA Brand), Plaintiff owns a valid and protectable interest in the COPPOLA
21
Brand.
22
23
24
46.
The COPPOLA Brand is distinctive, famous, and has acquired secondary meaning as
described above in, inter alia, Paragraphs 17 through 28.

47.
Through the joint promotion, advertisement, marketing, and sale of goods and services
25
that display marks in the COPPOLA Family of Marks, the consuming public has come to recognize
26
that the COPPOLA Brand indicates a common origin of goods and services.
27
28
48.
PCBs and Peter Coppolas actions as alleged herein, including in Paragraphs 3038
and 4142, constitute use of colorable imitations of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand in connection with
13
the advertising or sale of unauthorized goods in commerce. This conduct creates a likelihood of
confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of PCB and Peter
Coppola with Plaintiff, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of PCBs and Peter Coppolas
products by Plaintiff. PCBs and Peter Coppolas conduct is likely to induce consumers to believe,
contrary to fact, that PCBs hair care products are sponsored, endorsed, approved by, or connected
with Plaintiff and/or that the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark is a member of Plaintiffs COPPOLA
Family of Marks.
49.
Copomons actions as alleged herein, including in Paragraphs 3942, constitute use of
colorable imitations of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand in connection with the advertising or sale of
10
unauthorized goods in commerce. This conduct creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or
11
deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Copomon with Plaintiff, or as to the
12
origin, sponsorship, or approval of Copomons products by Plaintiff. Copomons conduct is likely to
13
induce consumers to believe, contrary to fact, that Copomons hair care products are sponsored,
14
endorsed, approved by, or connected with Plaintiff and/or that the Copmon Infringing COPPOLA
15
Mark is a member of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Family of Marks.
16
50.
Defendants conduct is without Plaintiffs permission or authority. In fact, Plaintiff
17
advised PCB in writing of its prior and senior rights in the COPPOLA Family of Marks. By virtue of
18
Plaintiffs federal registrations for the COPPOLA Brand, all Defendants had constructive notice of
19
Plaintiffs prior and senior rights in the COPPOLA Family of Marks. As a result, Defendants have
20
committed their infringement with full knowledge of Plaintiffs rights in the COPPOLA Brand and
21
COPPOLA Family of Marks. Thus, Defendants have willfully, deliberately, and maliciously
22
engaged in the described acts with an intent to injure Plaintiff and to deceive the public.
23
51.
Defendants conduct has been and is being committed with the intent and purpose of
24
appropriating and trading upon the goodwill and reputation associated with Plaintiffs COPPOLA
25
Brand. Such acts have damaged, impaired, and diluted that part of Plaintiffs goodwill symbolized
26
by its famous COPPOLA Brand, to Plaintiffs immediate and irreparable harm.
27
28
52.
Defendants respective unauthorized uses of the infringing COPPOLA marks, which
are confusingly similar to Plaintiffs COPPOLA Family of Marks, in connection with and to identify
14
their hair care products constitutes trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114. Upon
information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, have profited from this infringement and have
declined to exercise their rights to stop such infringement.
53.
and Peter Coppola.
54.
This is an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) with respect to defendants PCB
Defendants conduct has caused damage to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at
trial, and unless restrained, will continue to seriously and irreparably impair further the value of the
COPPOLA Brand and the COPPOLA Family of Marks, for which there is no adequate remedy at
law.
10
55.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting PCB and
11
Peter Coppola from using the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark, and prohibiting Copomon from
12
using the Copomon Infringing COPPOLA Mark, or any mark confusingly similar to Plaintiffs
13
COPPOLA Brand and/or COPPOLA Family of Marks for any purpose, and to recover from
14
Defendants all damages, including attorneys fees, that Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain as a
15
result thereof, in an amount not yet known, but which circumstanceswith respect to Defendants
16
PCB and Peter Coppolawarrant trebling pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, as well as the costs of this
17
action.
18
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19
(Federal False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
20
21
22
23
56.

57.
PCBs and Peter Coppolas actions as alleged herein, including in Paragraphs 3038
24
and 4142, constitute use in commerce of certain words, names, and false designations of origin in
25
connection with the sale and advertising of unauthorized goods and services. This conduct creates a
26
likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of PCB
27
and Peter Coppola on the one hand with Plaintiff on the other hand, or as to the origin, sponsorship,
28
or approval of PCBs and Peter Coppolas products by Plaintiff. PCBs and Peter Coppolas conduct
15
is likely to induce consumers to believe, contrary to fact, that PCBs hair care products are sponsored,
endorsed, approved by, or connected with Plaintiff and/or that the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark
is a member of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Family of Marks.
58.
Copomons actions as alleged herein, including in Paragraphs 3942, constitute use in
commerce of certain words, names, and false designations of origin in connection with the sale and
advertising of unauthorized goods and services. This conduct creates a likelihood of confusion,
mistake, or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Copomon with Plaintiff, or as
to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Copomons products by Plaintiff. Copomons conduct is
likely to induce consumers to believe, contrary to fact, that its hair care products are sponsored,
10
endorsed, approved by, or connected with Plaintiff and/or that the Copomon Infringing COPPOLA
11
12
59.
Defendants conduct is without Plaintiffs permission or authority. In fact, after PCB
13
filed its trademark application for the Infringing COPPOLA Mark, Plaintiff advised PCB in writing
14
of its prior and senior rights in the COPPOLA Family of Marks. By virtue of Plaintiffs federal
15
registrations for the COPPOLA Brand, all Defendants had constructive notice of Plaintiffs prior and
16
senior rights in the COPPOLA Family of Marks. Defendants continue using the infringing
17
COPPOLA marks. As a result, Defendants have committed their infringement with full knowledge
18
of Plaintiffs rights in the COPPOLA Brand and the COPPOLA Family of Marks. Thus, Defendants
19
have willfully, deliberately, and maliciously engaged in the described acts with an intent to compete
20
unfairly with Plaintiff and to deceive the public.
21
60.
Defendants respective uses of the infringing COPPOLA marks without authority
22
from Plaintiff in connection with and to identify Defendants respective goods, where the infringing
23
COPPOLA marks are confusingly similar to Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand and COPPOLA Family of
24
Marks as set forth above, constitutes false designation of origin and unfair competition in violation of
25
15 U.S.C. 1125(a). Upon information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, have profited from
26
this activity.
27
61.
28
and Peter Coppola.
This is an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) with respect to Defendants PCB
16
62.
Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand and COPPOLA Family of Marks, for which there is no adequate remedy
at law.
63.
10
result thereof, in an amount not yet known, but which circumstanceswith respect to Defendants
11
PCB and Peter Coppolawarrant trebling pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, as well as the costs of this
12
action.
13
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14
(Federal Trademark Dilution of the COPPOLA Family of Marks, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c))
15
16
17
18
64.

65.
The COPPOLA Brand, as the distinguishing and dominant element of the COPPOLA
19
Family of Marks, is famous within the meaning of the Lanham Act and is distinctive by virtue of
20
its inherent and acquired distinctiveness, its extensive use, its prominence in intended and unsolicited
21
media attention, and its publicity. As a result of the substantial inherent and acquired distinctiveness
22
and widespread use, the COPPOLA Brand and thus the COPPOLA Family of Marks is strong and
23
has become widely respected as a symbol for the goods and services it represents.
24
66.
Upon information and belief, Defendants respective hair care products advertised and
25
sold under the infringing COPPOLA marks are of inferior quality. By associating their products with
26
Plaintiff, Defendants uses of the infringing COPPOLA marks are likely to cause tarnishment by
27
diminishing the reputation and positive image associated with Plaintiffs famous COPPOLA Brand
28
and COPPOLA Family of Marks. Defendants respective hair care products advertised and sold
17
under the Infringing COPPOLA Mark also chip away at the distinctiveness of Plaintiffs famous
COPPOLA Brand and COPPOLA Family of Marks, thus diluting those marks through blurring.
67.
Defendants conduct is without Plaintiffs permission or authority. Defendants PCB
and Peter Coppola engaged in the conduct alleged herein knowingly, deliberately, and willfully with
the intent to trade on Plaintiffs reputation, fame, and goodwill and to dilute the COPPOLA Brand
and COPPOLA Family of Marks.
68.
Defendants respective unauthorized use of the infringing COPPOLA marks in
connection with and to identify their hair care products is likely to injure Plaintiff. Defendants
conduct has diluted and is likely to continue to dilute the COPPOLA Brand and COPPOLA Family
10
of Marks through blurring and/or tarnishment in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(c). Upon information
11
and belief, Defendants, and each of them, have profited from this activity and have declined to
12
exercise their rights to stop it.
13
69.
14
and Peter Coppola.
15
70.
This is an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) with respect to Defendants PCB
16
trial, and unless restrained, will continue to seriously and irreparably impair the value of Plaintiffs
17
COPPOLA Brand and COPPOLA Family of Marks, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
18
71.
19
20
21
COPPOLA Brand and/or COPPOLA Family of Marks, or that dilutes the distinctive quality of
22
Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand, either through blurring or tarnishment, for any purpose, and to recover
23
from Defendants all damages, including attorneys fees, that Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain
24
as a result thereof, in an amount not yet known, but which circumstanceswith respect to
25
Defendants PCB and Peter Coppola warrant trebling pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, as well as the
26
costs of this action.
27
28
18
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(State Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200)
4
5
6
72.

73.
Defendants conduct alleged herein constitutes trademark infringement, false
designation of origin, and dilution under 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. Defendants conduct thus
constitutes willful and deliberate unfair competition in wanton disregard of Plaintiffs valuable
intellectual property rights. Upon information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, have
10
11
profited from this infringement and have declined to exercise their rights to stop such infringement.
74.
Defendants conduct has directly and proximately caused and will continue to cause
12
Plaintiff substantial and irreparable injury, including customer confusion, injury to its reputation, and
13
diminution in value of its intellectual property, and unless restrained, will continue to seriously and
14
irreparably impair further the value of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand and COPPOLA Family of Marks,
15
for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
16
75.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction under Cal. Bus. & Prof.
17
Code 17200 et seq. restraining Defendants from engaging in further such unlawful conduct, as
18
well as to restitution of those amounts unlawfully obtained by Defendants through their wrongful
19
conduct.
20
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
21
(Common Law Trademark Infringement)
22
23
24
25
76.

77.
Defendants activities alleged herein have violated Plaintiffs trademark rights under
26
the common law. Upon information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, have profited from
27
this infringement and have declined to exercise their rights to stop such infringement.
28
78.
As a direct result of Defendants actions, Defendants have been unjustly enriched

19
through fraudulent conversion to their own profits of Plaintiffs goodwill and its rights in the
COPPOLA Brand and COPPOLA Family of Marks, and upon information and belief have caused
Plaintiff to lose sales of its genuine products and services.
79.
COPPOLA Brand and COPPOLA Family of Marks, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
80.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants
from using the Infringing COPPOLA Mark, or any mark confusingly similar to Plaintiffs COPPOLA
Brand and/or COPPOLA Family of Marks for any purpose, and to recover from Defendants all
10
damages, including attorneys fees, that Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain as a result thereof, as
11
well as the costs of this action.
12
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13
(Common Law Unfair Competition)
14
15
16
17
81.

82.
PCBs and Peter Coppolas conduct alleged herein, including in Paragraphs 3038 and
18
4142, constitutes use of colorable imitations of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand in connection with the
19
advertising or sale of unauthorized goods in commerce. These activities create a likelihood of
20
confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of PCB and Peter
21
Coppola on the one hand with Plaintiff on the other hand, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval
22
of PCBs and Peter Coppolas products by Plaintiff. PCBs and Peter Coppolas conduct is likely to
23
induce consumers to believe, contrary to fact, that PCBs and Peter Coppolas goods and services are
24
sponsored, endorsed, approved by, or connected with Plaintiff and/or that the PCB Infringing
25
COPPOLA Mark is a member of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Family of Marks.
26
83.
Copomons conduct alleged herein, including in Paragraphs 3942, constitutes use of
27
colorable imitations of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand in connection with the advertising or sale of
28
unauthorized goods in commerce. These activities create a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or

20
deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Copomon with Plaintiff, or as to the
origin, sponsorship, or approval of Copomons products by Plaintiff. Copomons conduct is likely to
induce consumers to believe, contrary to fact, that Copomons goods and services are sponsored,
endorsed, approved by, or connected with Plaintiff and/or that the Copomon Infringing COPPOLA
84.
PCBs and Peter Coppolas conduct is willful, deliberate, and intended to confuse the
public and injure Plaintiff. Further, PCBs and Peter Coppolas conduct is oppressive and malicious
in that it is intended to injure Plaintiff and is carried on by PCB and Peter Coppola with a willful and
conscious disregard of the rights of others.
10
85.
Defendants conduct constitutes unfair competition under California common law.
11
86.
12
trial, and unless restrained, will continue to seriously and irreparably impair further the value of
13
Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand and COPPOLA Family of Marks, for which there is no adequate remedy
14
at law. Upon information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, have profited from this activity
15
and have declined to exercise their rights to stop it.
16
87.
17
18
using the Copomon Infringing COPPOLA Mark or any mark confusingly similar to Plaintiffs
19
20
21
result thereof, as well as the costs of this action.
22
23
24
25
26
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants
as follows:
1.
For a preliminary and permanent injunction:

a.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116, enjoining and restraining PCB and Peter
27
Coppola, and their agents, affiliates, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with
28
them, from directly or indirectly using the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark, or any colorable
21
imitation of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand or COPPOLA Family of Marks, or any other designation
that infringes or dilutes the COPPOLA Brand and/or COPPOLA Family of Marks, or any of them, in
any manner;
b.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116, enjoining and restraining Copomon, and its
agents, affiliates, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from
directly or indirectly using the Copomon Infringing COPPOLA Mark, or any colorable imitation of
Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand or COPPOLA Family of Marks, or any other designation that infringes
or dilutes the COPPOLA Brand and/or COPPOLA Family of Marks, or any of them, in any manner;
c.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1118, ordering that PCB and Peter Coppola deliver up
10
and destroy all labels, signs, prints, business cards, stationery, packages, wrappers, receptacles,
11
websites, promotional materials, brochures, manuals, educational materials, and advertisements
12
bearing the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark or any colorable imitation thereof, or any other
13
designation that infringes or dilutes the COPPOLA Brand or COPPOLA Family of Marks;
14
d. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1118, ordering that Copomon deliver up and destroy all
15
labels, signs, prints, business cards, stationery, packages, wrappers, receptacles, websites,
16
promotional materials, brochures, manuals, educational materials, and advertisements bearing the
17
Copomon Infringing COPPOLA Mark or any colorable imitation thereof, or any other designation
18
that infringes or dilutes the COPPOLA Brand or COPPOLA Family of Marks;
19
2.
Ordering Defendants to file with this Court and serve upon Plaintiff within 15 days
20
after issuance of any injunction, a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner and
21
form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction;
22
3.
Ordering PCB and Peter Coppola to account to Plaintiff for any and all profits derived
23
by PCB and Peter Coppola from the use of the PCB Infringing COPPOLA Mark, or any names or
24
marks confusingly similar to Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand and/or COPPOLA Family of Marks, and
25
for all damages sustained by Plaintiff by reason of PCBs and Peter Coppolas acts of infringement,
26
false designation of origin, dilution, unfair competition, and injury to business reputation complained
27
of in this complaint, and that such amounts be held in constructive trust for Plaintiff;
28
22
4.
Ordering Copomon to account to Plaintiff for any and all profits derived by Copomon
from the use of the Copomon ln fringing COPPOLA Mark, or any names or marks confusingly
sim ilar to Plaintiff s COPPOLA Brand and/or COPPOLA Family of Marks, and fo r all damages
sustained by Plaintiff by reason of Copomon 's acts of infringement. false designation of origi n,
di lution, unfair competition, and injury to business reputation complained of in this complaint. and
that such amounts be he ld in constructive trust for Plai ntiff;
5.
That the Court award Plaintiff:
a.
All profits derived by Defendants wrongfu l acts complained of herein;
b.
All damages sustained by reason ofthe wrongful acts complained of herein;
10
c.
As to PCB and Peter Coppola, treble the amount of actual damages suffered by
II
Plaintiff under 15 U.S. C. 1117;
12
13
d.
Restitution for Defendants' unfair business practices pursuant to Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code 17200 et seq.;
14
e.
Punitive and exemplary damages against PCB and Peter Coppola and in fav or
15
of Plaintiff in an amount sufficient to deter and punish PCB and Peter Coppola for their willful and
16
wrongful acts;
17
f.
Its costs incurred in this action;
18
g.
lts reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. lll7(a);
19
h.
Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
20
6.
Such other and further relief as this Coutt deems just and proper.
21
22
K&L GATES LLP
23
24
25
26
27
Dated:
September ~ 2015
By
~cf1 t/;Jt_~
Susan E. Hollander
Seth A. Gold
Sharon i S. Finkelstein
Attorneys for GMYL, L.P.
28
23
FIRST AMENDED COM PLAINT -3:15-cv-03724-KAW
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff' GMYL, L.P. hereby demands a jury trial for all issues triable by a jury.
K&L GATES LLP
Dated:
September~0 1 5
Susan E. Hollander
Seth A. Gold
Sharolli S. Finkelstein
Attorneys fo r GMYL L.P.
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -3: 15-cv-03724-KAW

GMYL v. Peter Coppola Beauty - Coppola Trademark Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

GMYL v. Peter Coppola Beauty - Coppola Trademark Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

GMYL v. Peter Coppola Beauty - Coppola Trademark Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:15-cv-03724-VC Document 9 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 25

K&L GATES LLP

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GMYL, L.P., a California limited partnership,

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-03724-KAW

PETER COPPOLA BEAUTY LLC, a Delaware (2)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 3:15-cv-03724-KAW

Case 3:15-cv-03724-VC Document 9 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 25

dba Keratin Complex (Copomon) (collectively, Defendants), alleges the following:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand is famous. The COPPOLA-brand wine, food products,

on its well-known website located at www.francisfordcoppolawinery.com, and in grocery stores,

displaying the COPPOLA Brand in a predominant manner.

Plaintiffs widespread use of COPPOLA is supported by its numerous trademark

registrations that consist of or incorporate COPPOLA. Plaintiffs trademark registrations for

Case 3:15-cv-03724-VC Document 9 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 25

substantial value to Plaintiff and a symbol of Plaintiffs goodwill.

famous COPPOLA Brand.

COPPOLA Family of Marks.

Case 3:15-cv-03724-VC Document 9 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 25

prominently emphasize COPPOLA as a stand-alone brand. (Hereafter, the stand-alone trademark

as is the dilution of the distinctive quality of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand.

quality of Plaintiffs COPPOLA Brand.

Case 3:15-cv-03724-VC Document 9 Filed 09/18/15 Page 5 of 25

Defendant Copomon Enterprises, LLC dba Keratin Complex is a limited liability

those defendants by name.

Case 3:15-cv-03724-VC Document 9 Filed 09/18/15 Page 6 of 25

authorized, directed, accepted, ratified, and approved of such actions.

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

same case or controversy as the federal claims herein.

should have known would cause injury to Plaintiff in this District.

Case 3:15-cv-03724-VC Document 9 Filed 09/18/15 Page 7 of 25

Defendants hair care products bearing the Infringing COPPOLA Mark.

Venue/Intradistrict Assignment. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California

District, as set forth in Paragraphs 15 and 16 herein.

The COPPOLA Family of Marks

The COPPOLA Family of Marks consists of numerous uses of COPPOLA as a brand

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Case 3:15-cv-03724-VC Document 9 Filed 09/18/15 Page 8 of 25

dominant use and/or display of COPPOLAthat is, the COPPOLA Brand.

The following is a list of Plaintiffs trademark registrations that consist of or

FRANCIS COPPOLA PRESENTS

FRANCIS COPPOLA PRESENTS THE DIRECTORS SERIES

FRANCIS COPPOLA SELECTS

FRANCIS COPPOLA SOFIA

FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA DIRECTORS CUT

FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS

FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS

FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS ROSSO & BIANCO

FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS ROSSO & BIANCO

FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS WINE FOOD

FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS WINE FOOD

FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA WINERY

SOFIA BLANC DE BLANCS FRANCIS COPPOLA & Design

SOFIA RIESLING MONTEREY COUNTY FRANCIS

SOFIA ROS FRANCIS COPPOLA & Design

Case 3:15-cv-03724-VC Document 9 Filed 09/18/15 Page 9 of 25