Mars Inc. v. Rondo Food - Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION
MARS, INCORPORATED
6885 Elm Street
McLean, Virginia 22101
and
Civil Action No. ______________________
MARS PETCARE US, INC.
315 Cool Springs Blvd.
Franklin, Tennessee 37067 Judge: ______________________________
Plaintiffs,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
RONDO FOOD GMBH & CO. KG

Magdeburger Str. 65, D-47800
Krefeld
Germany
and
RONDO FOOD IRELAND LTD.

Unit 1A, Lower Tinahask, South Quay
Arklow, Co. Wicklow
Ireland
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Mars, Incorporated and Mars Petcare US, Inc. (together referred to as
“Plaintiffs” or “Mars”) bring this action against Defendants Rondo Food GmbH & Co. KG
(“Rondo Germany”) and Rondo Food Ireland Ltd. (“Rondo Ireland”) (together referred to as
“Defendants”), and allege as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is an action for trademark and trade dress infringement, false designation of
origin, unfair competition and related claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.
1
Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1

(as amended) and Tennessee common law, and for patent infringement under the patent laws of
the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
2. Mars is the leading manufacturer of pet food sold in the United States. Among
Plaintiffs’ best-known products are GREENIES canine dental treats. Those products bear a
unique trade dress comprised of a toothbrush head combined with a bone-shaped handle in the
color green. Plaintiffs have invested tens of millions of dollars advertising the GREENIES
products and have earned in excess of a $1 billion dollars in revenues from sales of the products.
Plaintiffs’ GREENIES dental treats are the subject of federal trademarks and patents.
3. Defendants, foreign pet food manufacturers, recently launched a competing line
of dental treats. Rather than invest the time and resources to create their own trade dress,
Defendants simply helped themselves to the trade dress of Plaintiffs’ GREENIES products,
copying the toothbrush and dog-bone shape and duplicating the green color of the products.
Defendants also copied certain patented elements of Plaintiffs’ GREENIES products.
4. Defendants’ sale of infringing products in United States commerce is spawning a
likelihood of confusion and harming the goodwill and reputation that Plaintiffs have cultivated
under their GREENIES trade dress over decades.
THE PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Mars, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at
6885 Elm Street, McLean, Virginia 22101. Mars, Inc. owns the trademark, trade dress and patent
rights related to the GREENIES products.
6. Plaintiff Mars Petcare is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business
at 315 Cool Springs Boulevard, Franklin, Tennessee 37067. Mars Petcare is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Mars, Inc. and the exclusive licensee of the trademark, trade dress and patent rights
related to the GREENIES products.
7. Defendant Rondo Germany is a foreign corporation organized and existing under
the laws of Germany, with a principal place of business at Magdeburger Str. 65, D-47800
Krefeld, Germany. On information and belief, Rondo Germany owns and controls co-Defendant
Rondo Ireland and directs and oversees Rondo Ireland’s manufacturing and sale of infringing
dental treats to companies in the United States, with actual knowledge that those products will, in
turn, be advertised, distributed, and sold throughout the country to customers, including pet
owners.
8. Defendant Rondo Ireland is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rondo Germany, with
a principal place of business at Unit 1A, Lower Tinahask, South Quay Arklow, Co. Wicklow,
Ireland. Rondo Ireland manufactures dental treats bearing a configuration that is highly similar to
Plaintiffs’ GREENIES toothbrush design, and sells those products to companies in the United
States. Rondo Ireland has actual knowledge that those products, in turn, are advertised,
distributed, and sold to customers throughout the United States, including pet owners. Rondo
Ireland owns a United States design patent for the configuration comprising its dental treats.
JURISDICTION
9. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under Section 39
of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121, as well as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, and the doctrine
of supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
10. Personal jurisdiction over Defendants is proper because Defendants manufacture
and cause the manufacturing of infringing goods which they sell to companies located in the
United States with actual knowledge that those products will be resold at retail stores throughout

the country, including in Tennessee, to customers such as pet owners. On information and belief,
Defendants are also subject to personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(k)(2) because they are not subject to general jurisdiction in any state within the United States,
the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws, and
Plaintiffs’ claims arise under federal law.
11. Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable injury in this Judicial District. Defendants are
causing injury within this District by selling infringing products which they know will, in turn,
be sold to customers in this District.
12. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C § 1391(b) because Mars Petcare
resides in this District, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims alleged herein
occurred in this District.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mars and the GREENIES Toothbrush Design
13. Mars is a leading manufacturer of pet food sold in the United States. One of
Mars’s most successful products is a line of dental treats sold under the mark GREENIES.
GREENIES dental treats are the top recommended dental treats by veterinarians.
14. Mars distinguishes its GREENIES dental treats from those sold by others by using
a highly distinctive, unique and unusual three-dimensional product configuration mark and a
two-dimensional design mark featuring a toothbrush head combined with a bone-shaped handle,
and the color green (the “GREENIES Toothbrush Design”).
15. Examples of products and packaging bearing Plaintiffs’ GREENIES Toothbrush
Design appear below and are attached as Exhibit A.

FIG. 1 - Examples of Plaintiff’s Products and Packaging

FIG. 1 (cont.) - Examples of Plaintiff’s Products and Packaging
16. Plaintiffs have sold dental chews bearing the GREENIES Toothbrush Design
throughout the United States for several years. Annual sales of products bearing the GREENIES
Toothbrush Design exceed $125 million. Plaintiffs invest many millions every year in
advertising and promoting products bearing the GREENIES Toothbrush Design. Over the years,
millions of pet owners throughout the country have purchased products bearing Plaintiffs’
GREENIES Toothbrush Design and it is well-known among the relevant public.
17. Plaintiff Mars, Inc. owns many federal trademark registrations covering the
GREENIES Toothbrush Design, as summarized below:

Mark Registration First Use Registration Goods
Number Date Date
3,122,596 November August 1, Pet snack food

2000 2006
(Incontestable Registration)
Description of mark: “A
configuration of a dog bone
with the shape of a head of a
tooth brush at one end, all
portions are the color green.”
The color green is claimed as a

feature of the mark.
3,220,981 September March 27, Pet Food
1996 2007
Description of mark: “A
configuration of a dog bone
with the shape of a head of a
tooth brush at one end.”
3,340,413 November November 20, Pet food

2000 2007

2,874,574 September August 17, Pet food and
1996 2004 pet treats
3,869,171 June 2006 November 2, Pet food and

2010 pet treats
5,135,318 June 2008 Feb 7, 2017 Pet food and

pet treats
18. Almost all of these registrations have achieved “incontestable” status under 15
U.S.C. § 1065, and are “conclusive evidence” of the validity and registration of the marks, of
Mars’s ownership of the marks, and of Mars and its licensee’s “exclusive right” to use the marks
for the registered goods, 15 U.S.C. § 1115. Copies of the registration certificates and related
documents showing Mars’s ownership of these marks are attached as Exhibit B.
19. Plaintiffs’ GREENIES Toothbrush Design is a distinctive, non-functional
trademark and trade dress. To consumers and others in the trade, that design exclusively
identifies Plaintiffs’ dental treats and did so long before the acts giving rise to this action. The

shape of a toothbrush is distinctive for a dental treat in part because dogs do not brush their teeth.
There are many competing dental treats that do not use a toothbrush shape.
20. Plaintiff Mars also own a utility patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,497,189 (“the ’189
Patent”) by assignment, for certain aspects of dog treats sold under the GREENIES brand. The
’189 Patent discloses and claims a specific arrangement and spacing of the bristles as well as
other improvements associated with the dog treats. (Exhibit C).
Defendants and Their Infringing Products
21. Defendants are manufacturing and causing the manufacture of canine dental
chews bearing a configuration that is substantially similar to Plaintiffs’ GREENIES Toothbrush
Design (the “Infringing Products”). Defendants are selling those products to companies in the
United States with actual knowledge that those the products are, in turn, advertised, distributed
and resold to customers throughout the country.
22. Defendants’ Infringing Products, like the GREENIES Toothbrush Design, feature
the head of a toothbrush at one end connected to a bone-shaped handle and are green. Examples
of Defendants’ Infringing Products are below, and additional images are shown in Exhibit D.
FIG. 2 - Examples of Defendants’ Infringing Products

23. Defendant Rondo Ireland owns a design patent for the configuration of the
Infringing Products in the United States.
24. Defendants’ Infringing Products are sold in supermarkets throughout the United
States, including in Tennessee, and online, for example at the websites Vitacost.com and
Amazon.com.
25. Defendants’ Infringing Products compete with Plaintiffs’ GREENIES dental
treats.
26. Defendants’ Infringing Products are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or
deception among consumers, including pet owners, as to the source and origin of the products.
27. Defendants commenced sale of the Infringing Products with the intent to cause
consumer confusion and to trade on the goodwill of Plaintiffs’ GREENIES dental treats.
28. Defendants’ Infringing Products infringe the ’189 Patent by embodying or
practicing the inventions in at least Claim 1 of the ’189 Patent.
COUNT I
(TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTORY TRADEMARK

INFRINGEMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE LANHAM ACT 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1))
29. The foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as a
part of this count.
30. Mars, Inc. owns numerous federal trademark registrations on the Principal
Register for its GREENIES Toothbrush Design for pet food and pet treats, including at least
those registrations shown in Exhibit B.
31. Defendants are selling the Defendants’ Infringing Products to companies in the
United States with actual knowledge that those products will, in turn, be advertised, distributed
and resold at retail to customers, including pet owners, which causes a likelihood of confusion
10

with Plaintiffs’ federally registered GREENIES Toothbrush Design marks.
32. Defendants’ Infringing Products are likely to cause consumers, including pet
owners and others, to erroneously believe that the products are manufactured, sponsored, or
otherwise approved by, or connected with, Plaintiffs.
33. Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights in the GREENIES
Toothbrush Design when they commenced sales of the Infringing Products in United States
commerce.
34. Defendants’ acts constitute trademark infringement and contributory trademark
infringement in violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).
35. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in these acts
of trademark infringement and contributory trademark infringement in United States commerce
which deceive the public and irreparably injure Plaintiffs.
COUNT II
(TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTORY TRADE DRESS

INFRINGEMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
part of this count.
37. Mars, Inc. owns common law rights for its GREENIES Toothbrush Design for
pet food and pet treats. The GREENIES Toothbrush Design is non-functional trade dress that has
acquired distinctiveness among the relevant public, including consumers and prospective
consumers, such as pet owners.
38. Defendants are selling the Defendants’ Infringing Products to companies in the
United States with actual knowledge that the products will, in turn, be advertised, distributed and
11

resold at retail directly to customers, including pet owners. Defendants’ Infringing Products
cause customers, including pet owners, to erroneously believe that Plaintiffs manufactured,
sponsored or otherwise approved the products and are connected with the products.
39. Defendants’ acts constitute trade dress infringement and contributory trade dress
infringement in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
40. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to engage in these acts
of infringement and contributory infringement in United States commerce which deceive the
public and irreparably injure Plaintiffs.
COUNT III
(FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND UNFAIR COMPETITION AND

CONTRIBUTORY FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND UNFAIR
COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
part of this count.
42. Mars, Inc. owns common law rights for its GREENIES Toothbrush Design for
pet food. The GREENIES Toothbrush Design is non-functional trade dress that has acquired
distinctiveness among the relevant public, including consumers and prospective consumers, such
as pet owners.
43. Defendants are selling the Infringing Products to companies in the United States
with actual knowledge that the products will, in turn, be advertised, distributed, and resold to
customers at retail, including pet owners, which causes a likelihood of confusion with Plaintiffs’
GREENIES Toothbrush Design marks.
44. Defendants’ Infringing Products are likely to cause customers, including pet
owners and others, to erroneously believe that the products are manufactured, sponsored, or
12

otherwise approved by, or connected with, Plaintiffs.
commerce.
46. Defendants’ acts constitute false designation of origin and unfair competition
and contributory false designation of origin and unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a)
of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
47. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in these acts
of false designation of origin, unfair competition and contributory false designation of origin and
contributory unfair competition in United States commerce which deceive the public and
irreparably injure Plaintiffs.
COUNT IV
(TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTORY TRADEMARK

INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE COMMON LAW)
part of this count.
49. Mars, Inc. owns common law and federally registered trademark rights in the
GREENIES Toothbrush Design.
with actual knowledge that the products will, in turn, be advertised, distributed, and resold at
retail to customers throughout the country, including pet owners, which causes a likelihood of
confusion with Plaintiffs’ GREENIES Toothbrush Design.
13

commerce.
52. Defendants’ acts constitute trademark infringement and contributory trademark
infringement in violation of common law.
53. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in acts of
trademark infringement and contributory trademark infringement in United States commerce
which deceive the public and irreparable injure Plaintiffs.
COUNT V
(TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTORY TRADE DRESS

INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE COMMON LAW)
part of this count.
55. Mars, Inc. owns common law and federally registered rights for its GREENIES
Toothbrush Design for pet food. The GREENIES Toothbrush Design is non-functional trade
dress that has acquired distinctiveness among the relevant public, including consumers and
prospective consumers, such as pet owners.
with actual knowledge that the products are, in turn, advertised, distributed, and resold at retail
directly to customers, including pet owners. Defendants’ Infringing Products cause customers,
including pet owners, to erroneously believe that Plaintiffs manufactured, sponsored or otherwise
approved the products or are connected with the products.
57. Defendants’ acts constitute trade dress infringement and contributory trade dress
infringement in violation of the common law.
58. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to engage in these acts
of infringement and contributory infringement in United States commerce which deceive the
14

public and irreparably injure Plaintiffs.
COUNT VI
(INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT NO. 7,497,189 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271)
part of this count.
60. Defendants infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims of the ’189
Patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents directly and indirectly pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 271 by making, importing, offering to sell, selling, using, and/or causing to be used the
Infringing Products, which embody or practice the inventions claimed in the ’189 Patent.
61. By way of non-exclusive example, Defendants infringed Claim 1 of the ’189
Patent which claims “an angled space between adjacent segments that is widest at the side of the
brush shaped head and narrows to a vertex toward the centerline of the brush-shaped head,
adapted to accommodate a canine tooth” via the segments appearing on the toothbrush head on
the Defendants’ Infringing Products, including at least those products shown in Exhibit D.
62. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to engage in these acts of
infringement, induced infringement and contributory infringement in United States commerce
which irreparably injure Plaintiffs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
A. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, that Defendants and each of their agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, officers, and all others in privity and acting in concert with them be
permanently enjoined from (a) using or causing other to use in United States commerce the
configuration that comprises the Infringing Products or any similar configuration or two
dimensional mark; and (b) using or causing others to use in the United States any trademark,
15

trade dress, design, or combination thereof which infringes or unfairly competes with Plaintiffs’
GREENIES Toothbrush Design.
B. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, that Defendants and each of their agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, officers, and all others in privity and acting in concert with them be
permanently enjoined from infringing directly or indirectly, and/or inducing others to infringe
the ’189 Patent.
C. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118, that Defendants be directed to deliver up for
destruction all packages, labels, advertisements, promotions, point of sale materials, signs, prints,
and all other materials in their possession or under their control that bear a depiction of the
Infringing Products or which is similar to the Infringing Products and that are intended to be used
in the United States.
D. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and state law, that Defendants be directed to pay
Plaintiffs damages in an amount sufficient to fairly compensate them for the injury they have
sustained, plus all the profits that are attributable to Defendants’ sale of the Infringing Products
in United States commerce, and such sums as the Court finds to be just, and further, that the
amount of the monetary award granted be trebled in view of the willful nature of Defendants’
unlawful conduct.
E. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, that Defendants be directed to pay damages adequate
to compensate for the infringement in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty, and further
that damages be trebled due to Defendants’ willful patent infringement.
F. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, 35 U.S.C. § 285, and state law, that this case be
found to be an exceptional case and that Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiffs the costs of this
action and Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees.
16

G. That Plaintiffs be awarded prejudgment and post-judgment interests, costs and
expenses.
H. That Plaintiffs be granted such other, further, different, or additional relief as this
Court deems equitable and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in connection with this Complaint against Defendants.
Dated: April 30, 2018 MARS, INCORPORATED and
MARS PETCARE US, INC.
By Counsel:
/s/ Matthew C. Cox

Matthew C. Cox, TN BPR No. 028212
WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
Nashville City Center
511 Union Street, Suite 2700
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 244-6380
Fax: (615) 244-6804
matt.cox@wallerlaw.com
Of Counsel
John J. Dabney
Katie Bukrinsky
Mary D. Hallerman
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
500 North Capitol Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 756-8000
Facsimile: (202) 756-8087
E-mail: jdabney@mwe.com;
kbukrinsky@mwe.com;
mhallerman@mwe.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
17

EXHIBIT A
Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 18

EXHIBIT B

4/24/2018 Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Home|Site Index|Search|FAQ|Glossary|Guides|Contacts|eBusiness|eBiz alerts|News|Help
Trademarks > Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
TESS was last updated on Tue Apr 24 03:47:49 EDT 2018
Logout Please logout when you are done to release system resources allocated for you.
Record 1 out of 1
( Use the "Back" button of the Internet Browser to return to
TESS)
Goods and IC 031. US 001 046. G & S: PET SNACK FOOD. FIRST USE: 20001100. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE:
Services 20001100
Mark Drawing
(2) DESIGN ONLY
Code
Design Search 03.13.02 - Bones (animals, four-footed mammals); Skeletons (animals, four-footed mammals); Skulls (animals,
Code four-footed mammals)
10.05.01 - Tooth brushes
Serial Number 78347124
Filing Date December 31, 2003
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing
1A
Basis
Published for
January 31, 2006
Opposition
Registration
3122596
Number
Registration
August 1, 2006
Date
Owner (REGISTRANT) S&M NUTEC, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MISSOURI 1 DESIGN DRIVE NORTH
KANSAS CITY MISSOURI 64116
(LAST LISTED OWNER) MARS, INCORPORATED INCORPORATED DELAWARE 6885 ELM STREET
MCLEAN VIRGINIA 22101
Assignment
ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Recorded
Attorney of
Courtney A. Laginess
Record
Description of The color(s) GREEN is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of A CONFIGURATION OF A
Mark DOG BONE WITH THE SHAPE OF A HEAD OF A TOOTH BRUSH AT ONE END, ALL PORTIONS ARE THE
COLOR GREEN.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:h0rl85.3.1 1/2
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)-IN PART

Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20160330.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20160330
Live/Dead
LIVE
Indicator
Distinctiveness
Limitation as to the configuration of the goods
Statement
|.HOME | SITE INDEX| SEARCH | eBUSINESS | HELP | PRIVACY POLICY

Record 1 out of 1
TESS)
Goods and
IC 031. US 001 046. G & S: PET SNACK FOOD. FIRST USE: 19960900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19980318
Services
Mark
Drawing (2) DESIGN ONLY
Code
Design 03.13.02 - Bones (animals, four-footed mammals); Skeletons (animals, four-footed mammals); Skulls (animals,
Search four-footed mammals)
Code 10.05.01 - Tooth brushes
10.05.05 - Brushes, body cleaning; Brushes, finger nail; Brushes, hair; Brushes, make-up; Combs, hair; Hair
brushes; Hair combs; Nail brushes; Shaving brushes
Serial
76355642
Number
Filing Date January 4, 2002
Current
1A
Basis
Original
1A
Filing Basis
Published
for June 24, 2003
Opposition
Registration
3220981
Number
Registration
March 27, 2007
Date
Owner (REGISTRANT) S&M NuTec, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION MISSOURI 1 DESIGN DRIVE NORTH
(LAST LISTED OWNER) MARS, INCORPORATED CORPORATION DELAWARE 6885 ELM STREET MCLEAN
VIRGINIA 22101
Assignment
ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Recorded
Attorney of Courtney A. Laginess
Record
Description Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a configuration of a dog bone with the shape of
of Mark a head of a tooth brush at one end. The drawing is lined for the color green, but color is not claimed as a feature of
the mark.
Type of
TRADEMARK
Mark
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Affidavit
SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20180110.
Text
Live/Dead
LIVE
Indicator

Record 1 out of 1
TESS)
Goods and
IC 031. US 001 046. G & S: pet food. FIRST USE: 20001100. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20001100
Services
Mark Drawing
(2) DESIGN ONLY
Code
Design Search 03.13.02 - Bones (animals, four-footed mammals); Skeletons (animals, four-footed mammals); Skulls
Code (animals, four-footed mammals)
10.05.01 - Tooth brushes
10.05.05 - Brushes, body cleaning; Brushes, finger nail; Brushes, hair; Brushes, make-up; Combs, hair; Hair
brushes; Hair combs; Nail brushes; Shaving brushes
Trademark
ANI-MISC Part of the animals including animal bones,horns,claws,shells,eyes,coral,paws,eggs,
Search Facility
feathers,hides or skins
Classification
ART-10.05 Toilet articles; grooming devices; mirrors
Code
Filing Date May 11, 2000
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing
1B
Basis
Published for
May 22, 2001
Opposition
Registration
3340413
Number
Registration Date November 20, 2007
Owner (REGISTRANT) S & M NuTec, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MISSOURI 1 DESIGN DRIVE NORTH
Assignment
ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Recorded
Attorney of Courtney A. Laginess
Record
Description of
Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
Mark
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead
LIVE
Indicator

Record 1 out of 1
TESS)
Goods and IC 031. US 001 046. G & S: PET FOOD AND PET TREATS. FIRST USE: 19960900. FIRST USE IN
Services COMMERCE: 19980300
Mark Drawing
(2) DESIGN ONLY
Code
Design Search 03.01.08 - Dogs; Puppies
Code 03.01.16 - Heads of cats, dogs, wolves, foxes, bears, lions, tigers
05.03.25 - Leaf, single; Other leaves
08.01.03 - Biscuits; Brioches
Filing Date April 22, 2003
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing
1A
Basis
Published for
May 25, 2004
Opposition
Change In
CHANGE IN REGISTRATION HAS OCCURRED
Registration
Registration
2874574
Number
Registration Date August 17, 2004
Owner (REGISTRANT) S&M NUTEC, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MISSOURI 1 DESIGN DRIVE NORTH
Assignment
ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Recorded
Attorney of
Anthony Palumbo
Record
Description of Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the head of a dog with a toothbrush
Mark shaped bone in its mouth and a leaf behind it.

Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead
LIVE
Indicator

Record 1 out of 1
TESS)
Word Mark GREENIES

Goods and IC 031. US 001 046. G & S: Pet food; Pet treats. FIRST USE: 20060600. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE:
Services 20060600
Mark Drawing
(3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
Code
Design Search 03.01.08 - Dogs; Puppies
Code 03.01.16 - Heads of cats, dogs, wolves, foxes, bears, lions, tigers
05.03.25 - Leaf, single; Other leaves
08.13.25 - Eggroll; Enchiladas; Potato chips; Potato chips; Rice; Salt; Snack foods; Sugar cubes; Tortilla
chips
Trademark ANI-MAMM Mammalia;accuracte depiction of warm-blooded animals except for human beings
Search Facility ART-08.13 Other foodstuffs
Classification ART-21.01 Games; toys
Code INAN Inanimate objects such as lighting,clouds,footprints,atomic configurations,snowflakes,rainbows,flames
SHAPES-ASTRO Astronomical shapes consisting of celestial bodies, globes and geographical maps
SHAPES-MISC Miscellaneous shaped designs
VEG Plant life such as trees,flowers,fruits,grains,nuts,wreaths,and leaves
Filing Date August 5, 2009
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing
1A
Basis
Published for
August 17, 2010
Opposition
Registration
3869171
Number
Registration Date November 2, 2010
Owner (REGISTRANT) THE NUTRO COMPANY CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1550 W. McEwen Drive Franklin
TENNESSEE 37067
Assignment
ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Recorded
Prior
2874574;3122596;3220981
Registrations
Description of Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the word "GREENIES" displayed in
Mark arched lettering; below that, the head of a dog with a dog treat in its mouth and a leaf behind it; and below
that, the image of a dog treat.
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)-IN PART
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead
LIVE
Indicator
Distinctiveness
Limitation as to the dog treat shape
Statement

Reg. No. 5,135,318 MARS, INCORPORATED (DELAWARE INCORPORATED )
6885 ELM STREET
Registered Feb. 07, 2017 MCLEAN, VA 22101
CLASS 31: Pet food; Pet treats

Int. Cl.: 31
FIRST USE 6-00-2008; IN COMMERCE 6-00-2008
Trademark
The color(s) green, tan, brown, black and white is/are claimed as a feature of the mark.
Principal Register
The mark consists of packaging for the goods containing a stylized green and tan double U
shape, with the head of a brown, black, and white dog with a green dog treat in its mouth and
a green leaf behind it. The rectangular packaging shown in broken or dotted lines is not part
of the mark and serves only to show the position or placement of the mark.
OWNER OF U.S. REG. NO. 3869171, 3869170, 2874574
SER. NO. 86-676,769, FILED 06-29-2015

CAROL A SPILS, EXAMINING ATTORNEY

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 # 5135318

Record 1 out of 1
TESS)
Goods and
IC 031. US 001 046. G & S: Pet food; Pet treats. FIRST USE: 20080600. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20080600
Services
Mark
Drawing (2) DESIGN ONLY
Code
Design 03.01.08 - Dogs; Puppies
Search Code 05.03.25 - Leaf, single; Other leaves
26.11.13 - Rectangles (exactly two rectangles); Two rectangles
26.11.20 - Rectangles inside one another
29.03.02 - Brown (single color used on a portion of the goods)
29.03.06 - Green (single color used on a portion of the goods)
Serial
86676769
Number
Filing Date June 29, 2015
Current
1A
Basis
Original
1A
Filing Basis
Published for
November 22, 2016
Opposition
Registration
5135318
Number
Registration
February 7, 2017
Date
Owner (REGISTRANT) MARS, INCORPORATED INCORPORATED DELAWARE 6885 ELM STREET MCLEAN
VIRGINIA 22101
Assignment
ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Recorded
Attorney of
Courtney Laginess
Record
Prior 2874574;3869170;3869171
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:gi8ign.2.1 1/2
Registrations
Description The color(s) green, tan, brown, black and white is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of
of Mark packaging for the goods containing a stylized green and tan double U shape, with the head of a brown, black, and
white dog with a green dog treat in its mouth and a green leaf behind it. The rectangular packaging shown in
broken or dotted lines is not part of the mark and serves only to show the position or placement of the mark.
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead
LIVE
Indicator

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:gi8ign.2.1 2/2
EXHIBIT C

Illlll llllllll Ill lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll 111111111111111111111111111111111
US007497189B2
c12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7,497,189 B2

Tomey et al. (45) Date of Patent: Mar.3,2009
(54) DOG CHEW 6,305,326 Bl* 10/2001 Suchowski et al. .......... 119/709
D453,242 S * 112002 Kaplan ...................... D30/160
(75) Inventors: Allan A. Tomey, Brampton (CA); D473,683 S * 4/2003 Willinger ................... D30/160
Emine Unlu, Murfreesboro, TN (US);
6,602,013 B2 * 8/2003 Clark ......................... 4011282
Neil Willcocks, Brentwood, TN (US);
Kasim Zubair, Brampton (CA); Tiffany
L. Bierer, Brentwood, TN (US)
(73) Assignee: Mars, Incorporated, McLean, VA (US) (Continued)

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
( *) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term ofthis
patent is extended or adjusted under 35 DE 43 15 124 1111994
U.S.C. 154(b) by 54 days.
(21) Appl. No.: 111766,314

OTHER PUBLICATIONS
(22) Filed: Jun.21,2007
Greenies® the Original Smart Treat for Dogs and Other Pets, S&M
(65) Prior Publication Data Nutec, LLC, © 2005, hrtp://web.archive.org/web/2005103010405/
US 2008/0041320Al Feb. 21, 2008 www.greenies.com/aboutU s.cfm (Last visited Apr. 16, 2008).
Primary Examiner-Yvonne R. Abbott

Related U.S. Application Data
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper &
(60) Provisional application No. 60/815,713, filed on Jun. Scinto
21, 2006.
(57) ABSTRACT
(51) Int. Cl.
AOJK 29100 (2006.01)
A61D 5100 (2006.01) A dog chew made of extruded, edible material has a brush-
(52) U.S. Cl. ...................................................... 119/709 shaped head at one end and a tail at the other. The brush-
(58) Field of Classification Search . ... ... ... ... .. .. 119/709, shaped head and tail are connected to the head by a shaft. The
1191710, 711, 702, 707, 708 brush-shaped head is provided with segments (for example
See application file for complete search history. six segments) with spaces between the segments adapted to
(56) References Cited be more easily manipulated in a dog's mouth, so that smaller
pieces break off when a dog bites and chews the article. Thus,
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS the brush-shaped head may contain individual segments hav-
3,458,268 A * 7/1969 Wozab eta!. ............... 4011261 ing an elliptical cross section, so that a dog's tooth can work
4,149,815 A * 4/1979 Kawam ...................... 4011201
between the individual segments or "bristles." Elsewhere on
D338,993 s * 9/1993 Lilly ........................... Dl/106 the profile of the dog chew, stepped surfaces are avoided in
5,263,436 A * 1111993 Axelrod ...................... 119/710 favor of smooth, rounded surfaces, so that the dog chew is
5,647,302 A * 7/1997 Shipp ......................... 119/709
more easily handled in the dog's mouth and has an aestheti-
5,755,184 A 5/1998 Neidenberger cally pleasing appearance.
D418,639 s * 112000 Simon ....................... D30/160
6,116,191 A * 912000 Suchowski et al. .......... 119/709 10 Claims, 2 Drawing Sheets

US 7,497,189 B2
Page 2
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 7,165,907 B2 * 1/2007 Levy .......................... 4011183

7,273,327 B2 * 9/2007 Hohlbein et al. ............ 4011132
6,688,258 Bl 212004 Kolesar D568,487 s * 5/2008 Hsu .......................... D24/214
6,739,287 Bl* 512004 Sarantis ...................... 119/709 2002/0083539 Al* 712002 Bella ........................... 15/106
6,769,828 B2 * 8/2004 Clark ......................... 4011284 200210106234 Al* 8/2002 Johnson ...................... 4011134
D499,226 s * 12/2004 Axelrod ....................... Dl/106 200610102099 Al* 512006 Edwards ..................... 119/710
D529,667 s * 10/2006 Axelrod ..................... D30/160 200710013104 Al* 1/2007 Axelrod ................... 264/297.2
D530,481 s * 10/2006 Koenig et al . ................ Dl/125 2007/0044730 Al* 3/2007 Axelrod et al. .............. 119/709
D531,365 s * 10/2006 Axelrod ..................... D30/160 2007/0101946 Al* 5/2007 Penny ........................ 119/709
D531,383 s * 1112006 Dettmer et al. .............. Dl/111 * cited by examiner

U.S. Patent Mar.3,2009 Sheet 1of2 US 7,497,189 B2
FIG. 1A
FIG. 1B
B D
FIG. 1C
/!Q
Tc TE
l G
l
U.S. Patent Mar. 3, 2009 Sheet 2 of 2 US 7,497,189 B2
FIG. 2A
Prior Art
/20
OIJIJIOIJt---------3
FIG. 28
Prior Art
/20

US 7,497,189 B2
1 2
DOG CHEW about 9.9 cm, and most preferably in a range of about 8.634
cm to about 9.543 cm. A medium ("Regular") size chew
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional preferably has a length in a range from greaterthan about 9.9
Application No. 60/815,713, filed Jun. 21, 2006, which is cm to about 11. 7 cm, and most preferably in a range of about
incorporated by reference. 5 9.954 cm to about 11.001 cm. A still larger ("Large") size
chew preferably has a length in a range from about 11.7 cm to
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION about 13 .0 cm, and preferably in a range of about 11. 725 cm
to about 12.959 cm. A chew appropriate for the largest dogs
1. Field of the Invention
("Jumbo") preferably has a length in a range of greater than
The invention relates to a dog chew having a shape so that 10
about 13.0 cm to about 16.0, and preferably in a range of
the dog chew is more easily chewed by a dog, and less dan-
gerous if swallowed. about 14.17 6 cm to about 15 .669 cm. However, any size chew,
2. Description of Related Art or different combinations of chews, could be offered within
The dog chew of the present invention is an improvement the general ranges given above.
over the known Greenies® brand of dog chew. The 15 While not limiting of the invention, the Teenie size chew is
Greenies® dog chew comprises a brush-shaped head at one targeted for a dog having a weight in a range of about 5 lbs to
end, a generally rectangular shaft, and a knuckle or bone about 15 lbs, the Petite size chew is targeted for a dog having
shaped portion at the opposite end. This brand of dog chew is a weight in a range of about 15 lbs to about 25 lbs, the Regular
popular, and the brush and bone shapes simultaneously con- size chew is targeted for a dog having a weight in a range of
vey to the consumer the dental hygiene and canine enjoyment 20 about 25 lbs to about 50 lbs, the Large size chew is targeted for
aspects of the chew. While this prior art product has been well a dog having a weight in a range of about 50 lbs to 100 lbs, and
received, it is believed that improvements can be made a Jumbo size chew is targeted for a dog in the 100 lb weight
thereon based on the way a dog chews and eventually swal- range and higher.
lows edible chews.
The chew is an extruded, thermoplastic edible mass, which
In particular, it would be highly desirable to improve the 25
manipulation of the chew in the dog's mouth and reduce the may be formed by injection molding or other suitable mold-
potential for large pieces to be broken off when a dog bites ing technique. Suitable compositions for the dog chew may
into the chew. The present invention is directed to achieve the have a density in a range of about 1.2 glee to about 1.3 glee,
aforementioned goals. such that the mass of the chew may be in a range of about 5 .0
30
gto about 125.0 g, preferablyinarangeofabout 8.0 gto about
DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES 86.0 g. A Teenie chew preferably has a mass less than about
10 g, most preferably in the range of 8.259 g to 8.947 g. A
FIG. lA, FIG. lB andFIG. lC show several views of a dog Petite chew preferably has a mass in a range of greater than
chew according to the invention. about 10 g to about 20 g, most preferably in a range of 17 .600
FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B show two views ofa Greenies® brand 35
g to 19 .066 g. A Regular chew preferably has a mass in a range
dog chew according to the prior art. of greaterthan about 20 g to about 30 g, most preferably in the
range of 27 .098 g to 29.356 g. A Large chew preferably has a
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION mass in a range of greater than about 30 g to about 50 g, most
preferably in a range of 44.127 g to 47.804 g. A Jumbo chew
A dog chew according to the invention comprises a brush- 40
preferably has a mass in a range of greater than about 50 g to
shaped head having a plurality of segments. The segments about 100 g, most preferably in a range of78.658 g to 85.213
approximate the "bristles" of the brush. The segments have g.
angled spaces between them, so that when a dog bites the The brush-shaped head has a plurality of segments,
head, the natural shape of a dog's tooth is accommodated by approximating "bristles." In preferred embodiments, these
being able to fit into these spaces, increasing the contact 45 bristle segments are approximately parallel. Increasing the
between the product and the tooth. A tail, opposite the head, number of bristles within the same length head introduces
is connected to the head by a shaft. Thus the head and tail form more break points into the head, resulting in smaller pieces
opposite extremities of the dog chew. In preferred embodi- being broken off when a dog bites on the chew. This increases
ments, the tail is bone-shaped, and at least one groove extends the solubility of the pieces in the dog's digestive tract by
from the tail along the shaft. The groove increases the frac- 50 increasing the surface area. Thus, preferably a chew accord-
turability of the chew in that area as well as guiding a dog's ing to the invention has four to eight segments, and most
teeth to that area when the dog is in the process of biting the preferably there are six segments, whereas the prior art
chew. Greenies® product has five segments, with little or no space
between the segments.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION 55 The side of the dog chew with the "bristles" is referred to
herein as the top of the chew. As seen from the top, the bristle
As seen in the specific embodiment of FIG. 1, the dog chew segments have a cross section adapted to increase the space
has a length "A" and comprises a brush-shaped head at one between the segments and thereby increase the surface area of
end and a bone-shaped tail at the opposite end. Generally, the the chew in contact with the tooth. Thus, in one aspect of the
length A is in a range of about 5.0 cm to about 20.0 cm, 60 invention, the bristle segments are shaped so that a space
preferably in a range of about 6.5 cm to about 16.0 cm. The between adjacent bristle segments forms an angle, widest at
chew may be provided in different lengths, appropriate for the opening on the side of the brush-shaped head and narrow-
different sized dogs. Thus, the smallest ("Teenie") size chew ing to a vertex in the direction of the centerline of the chew. A
preferably has a length in a range of about 5 .0 cm to about 7 .5 dog's tooth has the same general shape, wider at the base and
cm, most preferably about 6.636 cm to about 7.334 cm. A 65 pointed. Thus the shape, and specifically the space between
somewhat larger, but still small ("Petite") size chew prefer- bristle segments, promotes contact of the chew with the dog's
ably has a length in a range from greater than about 7 .5 cm to tooth. This contact of a dog's tooth with the chew, in addition

US 7,497,189 B2
3 4
to the contact arising from the penetration of a dog's tooth about 2.038 cm, the maximum height of the bone section may
into the body of the chew, results in a cleaning action on the be in a range of about 2.939 cm to about 3.248 cm and the
dog's teeth. maximum height of the brush-shaped head section may be in
In embodiments, the distance from the vertex of the angled a range of about 2.452 cm to about 2.710 cm. For a "Jumbo"
space to the side of the brush-shaped head (the width of the 5 size chew, having a shaft height in a range of about 2.312 cm
space) is more than about 10 percent of the distance from the to about 2.555 cm, the maximum height of the bone section
side of the chew to the centerline of the chew. Preferably, the may be in a range ofabout 2.818 cm to about 3 .115 cm and the
width of the space is more than about 15 percent of that maximum height of the brush-shaped head section may be in
distance, and most preferably more than about 20 percent of a range of about 3.052 cm to about 3.374 cm. These dimen-
that distance. For example only, a "Teenie" chew having 10 sions are exemplary only, illustrating preferred proportions
maximum bristle thickness dimension "B" of about 1 cm, as for the shape of the chew.
shown in FIG. 1, would most preferably have a space between The top of the brush-shaped head is preferably rounded,
adjacent segments extending more than about 0.1 cm toward which shape is more comfortably manipulated in a dog's
the centerline at the deepest point, 0.1 cm being 20 percent of mouth, in addition to providing a pleasing appearance.
the distance from the side of the chew to the centerline. The 15
spaces are found on both sides of the brush-shaped head. In preferred embodiments, the tail of the dog chew accord-
In a particularly preferred embodiment, again as shown in ing to the invention is in the shape of what is universally
FIG. 1, the bristle segments have an elliptical cross section understood as being one half of a dog bone icon, having two
forming an angled space between them. As noted above, this approximately equal, rounded protuberances extending away
is a departure from the prior art, in that angled spaces are 20
from the approximately parallel sides of a shaft, and having a
formed between the segments to accommodate a dog's teeth. height relative to the shaft as set forth above. Thus, "bone
Further, a dog's pre-molars, which are the slicing teeth, will shaped" in the context of the present application does not
engage these angled spaces between elliptical segments, refer to any particular bone, but to a dog bone icon.
rather than sliding along the side, making it easier for a As also shown in FIG. 1, the inventive dog chew is prefer-
smaller piece of the edible mass to be tom off. A dog's teeth 25 ably dimensioned so that a brush-shaped head and a bone-
will act as a wedge at these angled spaces, causing the dog shaped tail each have a maximum thickness thicker than the
chew to break along predetermined fracture lines when the shaft thickness "F." To illustrate suitable proportions, and
dog chews on the product. In embodiments, the angle formed without intending to limit the invention, a suitable dog chew
at the vertex between adjacent bristle segments is at least having a shaft thickness F in a range of about 0.767 cm to
about 15 degrees, preferably greater than about 20 degrees, 30 about 0.848 cm may have a maximum bristle thickness in a
and more preferably greater than about 25 degrees, measured range of about 0.980 cm to about 1.083 cm and a maximum
from a first side formed by a line perpendicular to the side of tail thickness in a range ofabout 1.054 cm to about 1.165 cm.
the chew and a second side formed by a line just touching the For a somewhat larger, but still small dog, a suitable dog chew
adjacent segment, and meeting the first side at the vertex. having a shaft thickness F in a range of about 0.987 cm to
As shown in FIG. 1, the head has thickness "B" and the tail 35 about 1.091 cm may have a maximum bristle thickness in a
has a thickness "D." In preferred embodiments, both the head range of about 1.281 cm to about 1.116 cm and a maximum
and the tail are thicker than the shaft. This is similar to the tail thickness in a range of about 1.356 cm to about 1.499 cm.
design of the prior art Greenies® product. However, in a For a medium-sized dog, a suitable dog chew having a shaft
departure from the prior art, gently sloping surfaces are pro- thickness F in a range of about 1.110 cm to about 1.227 cm
vided connecting the shaft and the tail to the head. Sloping in 40 may have a maximum bristle thickness in a range of about
this context simply means that there is no surface perpendicu- 1.4 70 cm to about 1.624 cm and a maximum tail thickness in
lar, or nearly perpendicular, to the longitudinal axis of the dog a range ofabout 1.583 cm to about 1. 750 cm. A large dog, may
chew, at the point where the brush-shaped head meets the require a dog chew having shaft thickness F in a range of
shaft. This is to prevent a dog catching its tooth at this point, about 1.303 cm to about 1.440 cm, in which case, the brush-
and makes the product more easily manipulated in a dog's 45 shaped head may have a suitable maximum thickness in a
mouth, as the tooth slides along this sloped portion and is range ofabout 1.733 cm to about 1.915 cm and a tail thickness
guided into the groove along the shaft. in a range of about 1.846 cm to about 2.040 cm. A still larger
As showninFIG.1, the brush-shaped head and the tail have dog may use a Jumbo dog chew having a shaft thickness F of
heights "C" and "E," respectively, larger than the height "G" 1.578 cm to about 1.744 cm, in which case, the maximum
of the shaft. Thus, for example only, and without intending to 50 thickness of the brush-shaped head is suitably in a range of
limit the invention, if the shaft height G is in a range of about about 2.261 cm to about 2.499 cm and the maximum thick-
1.054 cm to about 1.165 cm for a "Teenie" size dog chew, then ness of the tail may suitably be in a range of about 2.111 cm
the maximum height of the bone section may be in a range of to about 2.334 cm. Again, these dimensions are exemplary,
about 1.658 cm to about 1.832 cm, and the maximum height intended to show the preferred proportions of different sizes
for the brush-shaped head section may be in a range of about 55 of the preferred embodiments.
1.431 cm to about 1.582 cm. For a "Petite" size chew, having The shaft is preferably provided with at least one groove so
a shaft height in a range of about 1.356 cm to about 1.499 cm, that fracture lines preferentially form in that area when a dog
the maximum height of the bone section may be in a range of bites on the chew. The groove is the thinnest part of the shaft,
about2.148 cm to about 2.374 cm and the maximum height of and therefore the chew is more apt to break at that point. More
the brush-shaped head section may be in a range of about 60 preferably, grooves extend along both sides of the shaft from
1.846 cm to about 2.040 cm. For a "Regular" size chew, the tail almost to the brush-shaped head. As shown in FIG. 1,
having a shaft thickness in a range of about 1.573 cm to about the thickness of the shaft where the sides are approximately
1.739 cm, the maximum height of the bone section may be in parallel, before they begin sloping toward the brush-shaped
a range of about 2.488 cm to about 2.750 cm, and the maxi- head or bone-shaped tail, is given by dimension "F." The
mum height of the brush-shaped head section may be in a 65 thickness of the shaft between the deepest point of a groove
rangeofabout 2.111 cm to about2.334 cm. Fora "Large" size and an opposite side (or between two opposing grooves on
chew, having a shaft thickness in a range of about 1.844 cm to opposite sides), is preferably in a range of about 30 to about

US 7,497,189 B2
5 6
85 percent of the dimension F, more preferably in a range of 3. The dog chew according to claim 1, wherein the distance
about 40 percent to about 7 5 percent of the thickness F of the from the vertex of the angled space to the side of the brush-
shaft. shaped head is more than about 10 percent of the distance
The sides of the at least one groove may be angled so that from the centerline of the brush-shaped head to the side of the
a dog's teeth, and especially the pre-molars, act as a wedge, 5 brush-shaped head.
forcing the sides apart when a dog bites on the chew in that 4. The dog chew according to claim 1, wherein the brush-
area. In embodiments, the groove runs substantially the shaped head has a rounded end.
length of the shaft, starting at a narrower portion where the 5. The dog chew according to claim 1, wherein the seg-
two protuberances of the bone-shaped tail meet the shaft, and ments of the brush-shaped head have an elliptical cross-sec-
ending just short of the brush-shaped head. 10 tion so that spaces having angled sides are formed between
Prior art compositions known to be useful in this context the segments.
and methods of extruding them are disclosed for example in 6. The dog chew according to claim 1, wherein the brush-
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/060,943, herein incorpo- shaped head is thicker than the shaft and has greater height
rated by reference. Compositions may be developed with than the shaft, and the shaft is connected to the brush-shaped
improved solubility, as described in U.S. Provisional Patent 15 head by sloping sides on the shaft.
Application corresponding to 60/815,682, herein incorpo- 7. The dog chew according to claim 1, wherein the tail is
rated by reference. bone-shaped, comprising two approximately equal protuber-
As described above, the angled spaces between the seg- ances extending from approximately parallel sides of the
ments of the brush-shaped head and the groove along the shaft shaft, and wherein the bone-shaped tail is thicker than the
create predetermined fracture lines so that the dog chew 20 shaft and has greater height than the shaft.
breaks along those lines when the dog chews on it. The 8. The dog chew according to claim 1, having a length in a
composition of the dog chew may be selected to enhance the range of about 5 .0 cm to about 15 cm and a mass in a range of
effect of these predetermined fracture lines. A composition about 5.0 g to about 125.0 g.
that yields a softer, more elastic dog chew, will also tend to 9. The dog chew according to claim 1, wherein the density
assist the breakage along the predetermined fracture lines, 25 of the dog chew is in a range of about 1.2 to about 1.3 glee.
rather than along crystal lines of the extruded product. A 10. The dog chew according to claim 1,
composition may be formulated to enhance the ability of wherein segments of the brush-shaped head have an ellip-
product to be sheared apart with a wedge action of a dog's tical cross-section so that spaces having angled sides are
teeth. Compositions described in the aforesaid U.S. Provi- formed between the segments;
sional Patent Application identified with 60/815,682 may be 30 wherein the shaft is generally rectangular, having a shaft
adapted for this purpose. thickness and a shaft height measured at a point where
What is claimed is: opposing sides of the shaft are approximately parallel;
1. A dog chew, comprising: wherein the brush-shaped head is rounded and has a maxi-
a brush-shaped head having a plurality of segments; mum thickness greater than the shaft thickness;
an angled space between adjacent segments that is widest 35 wherein the tail is bone-shaped, comprising two approxi-
at the side of the brush shaped head and narrows to a mately equal protuberances extending from the shaft,
vertex toward the centerline of the brush-shaped head, the bone-shaped tail being thicker than the shaft thick-
adapted to accommodate a canine tooth; ness and having greater height than the shaft height; and
a tail opposite the head; wherein at least one groove extends along the shaft
a shaft connecting the head and the tail, such that the head 40 between the bone-shaped tail and the brush-shaped
and tail form opposite extremities of the dog chew. head.
2. The dog chew according claim 1, constructed of
extruded, thermoplastic edible material. * * * * *

EXHIBIT D


Mars Inc. v. Rondo Food - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Mars Inc. v. Rondo Food - 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

Mars Inc. v. Rondo Food - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

RONDO FOOD GMBH & CO. KG

RONDO FOOD IRELAND LTD.

“Defendants”), and allege as follows:

Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1

the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

3. Defendants, foreign pet food manufacturers, recently launched a competing line

Defendants also copied certain patented elements of Plaintiffs’ GREENIES products.

4. Defendants’ sale of infringing products in United States commerce is spawning a

under their GREENIES trade dress over decades.

5. Plaintiff Mars, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at

rights related to the GREENIES products.

6. Plaintiff Mars Petcare is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business

Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2

related to the GREENIES products.

7. Defendant Rondo Germany is a foreign corporation organized and existing under

8. Defendant Rondo Ireland is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rondo Germany, with

of supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

10. Personal jurisdiction over Defendants is proper because Defendants manufacture

Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 3

Plaintiffs’ claims arise under federal law.

be sold to customers in this District.

occurred in this District.

Mars and the GREENIES Toothbrush Design

and the color green (the “GREENIES Toothbrush Design”).

15. Examples of products and packaging bearing Plaintiffs’ GREENIES Toothbrush

Design appear below and are attached as Exhibit A.

Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4

Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 5

GREENIES Toothbrush Design and it is well-known among the relevant public.

GREENIES Toothbrush Design, as summarized below:

Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 6

3,122,596 November August 1, Pet snack food

The color green is claimed as a

3,340,413 November November 20, Pet food

Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 7

3,869,171 June 2006 November 2, Pet food and

5,135,318 June 2008 Feb 7, 2017 Pet food and

documents showing Mars’s ownership of these marks are attached as Exhibit B.

19. Plaintiffs’ GREENIES Toothbrush Design is a distinctive, non-functional

Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 8

other improvements associated with the dog treats. (Exhibit C).

Defendants and Their Infringing Products

chews bearing a configuration that is substantially similar to Plaintiffs’ GREENIES Toothbrush

and resold to customers throughout the country.

FIG. 2 - Examples of Defendants’ Infringing Products

Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9

Infringing Products in the United States.

25. Defendants’ Infringing Products compete with Plaintiffs’ GREENIES dental

26. Defendants’ Infringing Products are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or

28. Defendants’ Infringing Products infringe the ’189 Patent by embodying or

practicing the inventions in at least Claim 1 of the ’189 Patent.

(TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTORY TRADEMARK

29. The foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as a

part of this count.

those registrations shown in Exhibit B.

Case 3:18-cv-00409 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 10

otherwise approved by, or connected with, Plaintiffs.