Sauer Brands V Duke's Sandwiches

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT

OF NORTH CAROLINA
SAUER BRANDS, INC. a/k/a DUKE’S,
Plaintiff,
Case No. ____________________
v.
Jury Trial Demanded
DUKE SANDWICH PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
DFP SANDWICH SHOPS, LLC, and DUKE
BRANDS,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Sauer Brands, Inc. a/k/a Duke’s (“Duke’s”), by counsel and pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), hereby alleges as follows for its First Complaint against
Defendants Duke Sandwich Productions, Inc., DFP Sandwich Shops, LLC, and Duke Brands
(“Defendants”):
Introduction
1. Tracing its roots back to 1917 and Eugenia Duke’s secret recipes, DUKE’S
mayonnaise has been a household name and Southern staple for decades. Plaintiff Duke’s has
owned the famous DUKE’S brand since 1929 and manufactures DUKE’S in Greenville, South
Carolina.
2. The DUKE’S brand embodies a distinctive Southern tradition of rich and flavorful
high-quality mayonnaise and spreads sold by Duke’s. The DUKE’S brand also stands for the long
history and tremendous goodwill that the Sauer family built up in the DUKE’S brand and shared
with consumers. There is, and always has been, only one iconic DUKE’S brand.
3. Over the last 90 years, Duke’s has worked tirelessly to perfect and promote the
DUKE’S branded products and to make DUKE’S mayonnaise a must-have ingredient for
Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 28

discerning consumers and chefs in the South and nationwide. Duke’s built the DUKE’S brand
from a beloved local product into a household name.
4. Due to Duke’s hard work and dedication, consumers nationally and internationally
now recognize the DUKE’S brand.
5. In fact, the DUKE’S brand and marks are so popular that they have become
synonymous with authentic Southern food. For example, blogs and other sites dedicated to
Southern recipes frequently tout DUKE’S branded products as the only acceptable ingredient, even
encouraging people to use DUKE’S branded products over products that are homemade.
6. Similarly, Duke’s routinely licenses the DUKE’S Mark to restaurants because
restaurants are eager to state on menus that customers’ favorite food options are made with the
beloved DUKE’S branded products.
7. Simply put, the DUKE’S trademark embodies substantial goodwill. It not only
drives sales of the DUKE’S branded products, but it also drives sales of items made with DUKE’S
branded products.
8. That goodwill, along with the DUKE’S brand and family of marks, belongs
exclusively to Duke’s.
9. Defendants—well-aware of the popularity and goodwill of the DUKE’S brand and
family of marks—have embarked on an unapologetic mission to exploit for their own personal
gain the goodwill and popularity that Duke’s has spent the last 90 years developing and building
in the DUKE’S brand.
10. Specifically, despite knowing full well that any rights they can possibly claim to
use DUKE are limited to the three-location DUKE SANDWICH COMPANY restaurant in South
Carolina, Defendants have recently begun a campaign to capitalize on the reputation and brand

recognition of DUKE’S that was built by Duke’s. In addition to using DUKE (which is
indistinguishable from DUKE’S) without SANDWICH COMPANY, Defendants have adopted a
look-alike DUKE logo for use on mayonnaise-based spreads and have begun selling those DUKE
mayonnaise-based spreads and related products in grocery stores throughout the southern United
States, as shown below:
(DUKE’S Genuine Mayonnaise) (Defendants’ Infringing DUKE Spread)
11. Defendants are engaging in this conduct in flagrant disregard of Duke’s
undeniable prior intellectual property rights to the DUKE’S brand.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendants are engaging in this conduct in order to
confuse consumers into believing they are connected to the famous DUKE’S brand, therefore
allowing Defendants’ new packaged spreads and foods business to freeride off of the established
and still rapidly growing national reputation of the DUKE’S brand.
13. Duke’s therefore brings this action for trademark infringement, unfair competition,
false designation of origin, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et
seq., and North Carolina common law; for unfair and deceptive trade practices under the North
Carolina Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-11 et seq.; and for
cancellation of Defendants’ unlawful federal trademark registrations.

The Parties
14. Plaintiff Sauer Brands, Inc. a/k/a Duke’s is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Delaware. Duke’s maintains a place of business at 2000 West Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23220 and sells DUKE’S products throughout the United States, including in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
15. Upon information and belief, Duke Sandwich Productions, Inc. is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina. Duke Sandwich Productions, Inc.
maintains a place of business at 211 Pine Road, Easley, SC 29642.
16. Upon information and belief, DFP Sandwich Shops, LLC is a limited liability
corporation organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina. DFP Sandwich Shops, LLC
maintains a place of business at 211 Pine Road, Easley, SC 29642.
17. Upon information and belief, Duke Brands is a business entity and maintains a
place of business at 600 S Main Street, Greenville, SC, 29601.
Jurisdiction and Venue
18. This Court has original jurisdiction over this Complaint for infringement of
trademark, unfair competition, false advertising, and trademark dilution involving a famous mark,
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a), as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction); 28
U.S.C. § 1337(a) (Commerce Regulations); and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b) (Trademark and Unfair
Competition).
19. This Court has jurisdiction of all pendant state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(a) (Supplemental Jurisdiction) because all such claims are based upon the same or
substantially the same conduct by Defendant.

20. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction of this Court as Defendants have
sufficient minimum contacts with the state of North Carolina through their sales in the state. For
example, as outlined more fully below, Defendants are engaged in the promotion and sale of
infringing products in and around Charlotte, North Carolina. Attached as Exhibit A are
representative examples of photographs showing Defendants’ infringing DUKE’S branded
products, which were purchased in Bi-Lo and/or Ingles grocery stores in and around Charlotte.
Moreover, Defendants have announced that in the third quarter of2019, they will open a
manufacturing facility in this judicial district that they will use to prepare, package, and distribute
the infringing products at issue in this case.
21. For the same reasons, the Western District of North Carolina is the proper venue
for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Duke’s and the Famous DUKE’S Brand and Family of Marks
22. In 1917, Eugenia Duke created the recipe for what is now the widely popular
DUKE’S branded mayonnaise. The recipe, along with Eugenia Duke’s other relishes, dressings,
stews, soups, cakes, and related products, found instant success in the Greenville, South Carolina
area.
23. On February 9, 1929, Mrs. Duke and her husband sold the DUKE’S brand and
business to Duke’s through a Bill of Sale (the “1929 Agreement”).
24. The 1929 Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint, is expansive.
25. It expressly transfers all of Mrs. Duke’s business to Duke’s, including but not
limited to “the business, trade marks, brands, trade names, all recipes and formulae . . . used by
the said Duke Products Company in and about the manufacture, distribution, and sale of any and
all of the products of said Partnership, including Duke’s Home Made Mayonnaise (black and

yellow label); Duke’s Mayonnaise (blue label), and Home Made Relishes; Duke’s Russian
Dressing and Thousand Island Dressing (black label); Duke’s Brunswick Stew; Duke’s Home
Made Vegetable Soup; Duke’s Fruit Cake; and any and all other products manufactured and
distributed by the said partnership.” Ex. B to the Complaint, § 1.
26. In the 1929 Agreement, Mrs. Duke expressly warranted that she was transferring
not only “the registered trademark ‘DUKE’S’ with respect to Mayonnaise, Russian Dressing and
Relishes” but also that Duke’s would “have the full title in and to and ownership of the said word
‘DUKE’S’ with respect to any other product as to which said word ‘DUKE’S’ whether registered
or not registered may properly be used.” Id. § 3.
27. The only asset not transferred to Duke’s was Mrs. Duke’s local South Carolina
sandwich business, which she had previously sold. Id. § 4(a).
28. After the sale of DUKE’S in 1929, Eugenia Duke stayed on with Duke’s as its chief
salesperson, and she and the Sauer family set to work expanding the business, selling DUKE’S
mayonnaise and related products throughout the southeastern United States. Over the years,
Duke’s also adopted a distinctive logo treatment and packaging design for use on DUKE’S
products, as shown in Exhibit C.
29. To protect the increasingly valuable DUKE’S brand, Duke’s registered several
DUKE’S marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including:
Mark Reg. No. Goods and First Use Reg. Date

Services Date
734,661 Cl. 29: Blue cheese 1961 July 17, 1962
dressing
1,650,276 Cl. 30: Tartar 1947 July 9, 1991

sauce, sandwich
relish, and
barbeque sauce

Mark Reg. No. Goods and First Use Reg. Date
Services Date
1,650,253 Cl. 29: mayonnaise 1947 July 9, 1991
and salad dressing
3,600,687 Cl. 30: Barbecue 1979 April 7, 2009

sauce and dipping
sauce
4,005,468 Cl. 30: mayonnaise, 1921 August 2,
tartar sauce, 2011
sandwich relish,
and salad dressing
True and correct copies of Duke’s trademark registrations for the DUKE’S trademarks are attached
as Exhibits D, E, F, G, and H to the Complaint. Together with Duke’s common-law trademarks
as depicted in Exhibit C to the Complaint, these are the DUKE’S Marks.
30. Each of Duke’s registrations for the DUKE’S Marks are valid and subsisting on the
Principal Register, and have been since their respective registration dates.
31. Four of those registrations—U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,650,276, 1,650,253, 3,600,687, and
4,005,468—have obtained incontestable status under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1065. As such,
they are conclusive evidence of the validity of the DUKE’S Marks, of Duke’s ownership of the
DUKE’S Marks, and of Duke’s exclusive right to use the DUKE’S Marks with condiments and
dressings in the United States.
32. The remaining registration—which is nearly sixty years old—is also prima facie
evidence of the validity of the DUKE’S Marks, of Duke’s ownership of the DUKE’S Marks, and
of Duke’s exclusive right to use the DUKE’S Marks with condiments and dressings in the United
States.
33. In addition to obtaining federal trademark registrations for the DUKE’S Marks,
Duke’s has extensively promoted and advertised the DUKE’S Marks over the last 90 years.

34. Due to the Sauer family’s dedication of extensive time and resources, the DUKE’S
brand quickly gained attention beyond the areas in which Mrs. Duke originally operated, and the
high-quality, flavorful, unique products Duke’s continues to sell and promote under the DUKE’S
Marks quickly became staples in refrigerators across the country.
35. Although primarily sold through grocery stores, by 2004 Duke’s expanded its sales
of its DUKE’S branded products to online. Today, DUKE’S branded products can be found in
many major grocery stores, including Bi-Lo, Ingles, Harris Teeter, Publix, Piggly Wiggly, and
more.
36. DUKE’S branded products are also routinely and purposefully used by professional
chefs and home cooks nationwide as the irreplaceable basis for a variety of Southern spreads,
including pimento cheese, chicken salad, egg salad, ham salad, and other classic Southern
mayonnaise-based recipes. The DUKE’S brand was in fact featured in a documentary titled
Pimento Cheese Please!, with representatives from Duke’s judging a pimento cheese contest at
the premiere.
37. Accordingly, thanks to Duke’s dedication to excellence, advertising, and decades
of hard work, the DUKE’S products grew from regionally popular prepared foods to a nationwide,
famous brand that is instantly recognizable to the consuming public in the United States.
38. In fact, unusual for a low-cost grocery store staple, independent blogs and news
articles frequently laud the quality of DUKE’S mayonnaise. Websites and cookbooks dedicated to
Southern recipes regularly tout DUKE’S branded mayonnaise as the only acceptable ingredient,
even encouraging people to use DUKE’S branded products over products that are homemade.
Representative examples are attached as Exhibit I.

39. The DUKE’S brand is enormously popular, and the DUKE’S Marks embody
substantial consumer goodwill that drives not just sales of DUKE’S branded products, but also
sales of products advertised as containing DUKE’S brand mayonnaise.
Defendants’ Willful Infringement of Duke’s DUKE’S Marks
40. As noted above, Mrs. Eugenia Duke, creator of the original DUKE’S recipes, also
owned and operated a local sandwich business in the Greenville, SC area.
41. Mrs. Duke sold her sandwich business to Alan Hart and others pursuant to a 1923
agreement in order to focus on her successful mayonnaise business.
42. Upon information and belief, and based on the 1929 Agreement, the rights sold to
Mr. Hart were narrow, giving Mr. Hart and his successors in interest the right to continue Mrs.
Duke’s South Carolina-based sandwich business but without rights in the DUKE’S brand.
43. In fact, upon information and belief, until recently, the various entities that have
owned and operated the sandwich business since Mr. Hart acquired it have acted consistently with
that understanding, limiting their activities to the management and operation of a sandwich
business in and around Greenville, South Carolina.
44. Thus, while Duke’s was expanding and growing its DUKE’S Marks into a famous,
nationwide brand, upon information and belief, Mr. Hart and his successors in interest kept the
sandwich business local and within the confines of South Carolina.
45. Defendants claim to be successors-in-interest to Mr. Hart’s South Carolina-based
sandwich business. According to Defendants’ Duke Sandwich Company website, the Smart
family purchased the sandwich business from Mr. Hart in the 1960’s, and later “transform[ed] the
company by establishing several restaurant locations” in the late 1970’s.

46. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ historical and continuous use of the name
DUKE SANDWICH COMPANY has been in connection with sandwich shops, which are only
located in South Carolina, and of which there are currently three locations. Defendants’ flagship
shop location in Greenville, dating to no earlier than the 1960’s, is shown below:
47. Defendants have tacitly accepted through their conduct for decades that their rights
to use DUKE are limited to a sandwich business in South Carolina that is clearly branded
“SANDWICH COMPANY”, and which does not sell in grocery stores.
48. Despite this long course of dealing, Defendants have recently set out to dramatically
expand their business in order to capitalize on Duke’s hard work and the goodwill Duke’s has built
in the DUKE’S Marks over the last 90 years.
A. Defendants’ Expansion into Duke’s Goods and Channels of Trade and

Development of a New Infringing Logo
49. In recent years, Defendants took deliberate steps to capitalize on the substantial
goodwill and fame that Duke’s has built in the famous DUKE’S Marks.
10

50. Defendants have expanded their product offerings into market territory that is
traditionally Duke’s by manufacturing and selling spreads, dips, salsas, and other packaged foods,
including but not limited to a line of mayonnaise-based spreads such as pimento cheese, egg salad,
chicken salad, and ham/pepper/onion spread, and a cream cheese and pineapple spread (the
“Spreads”). Defendants sell these products under the brand name DUKE, dropping altogether or
minimizing “SANDWICH COMPANY” in their logos and branding.
51. Defendants have begun selling these DUKE-branded packaged foods into regional
and national grocery store chains, including outside of South Carolina.
52. In late 2018, Defendants created a new DUKE logo for Spreads (“DUKE Logo”).
53. The DUKE Logo appears to be designed to look just like the DUKE’S Marks and
packaging that Duke’s has used for decades.
54. As pictured below, Defendants’ DUKE Logo and the packaging on the Spreads
copy virtually every aspect of the famous DUKE’S mayonnaise jar logo and packaging.
55. For example, Defendants adopted a similar cursive script to the font Duke’s uses
with the famous DUKE’S Marks; copied the gold lettering and angled font for DUKE and white
lettering for other text; adopted the overall color scheme; employed a similar black circle on a
bright yellow background; incorporated a red banner; and even adopted the DUKE’S “since 1917”
tag line:
(Duke’s DUKE’S Mark and Packaging) (Defendants’ DUKE Logo and Packaging)
11

56. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ entire purpose in changing their logo was
to deceive consumers – i.e. with the hope that consumers would purchase Defendants’ goods and
services based on a mistaken belief that they were made of or affiliated with DUKE’S mayonnaise,
not realizing they are, in fact, not affiliated in any way with DUKE’S mayonnaise or Duke’s.
57. In fact, Defendants’ efforts to sell the Spreads using the DUKE Logo in grocery
stores—i.e., Duke’s primary channel of trade—confirms this point. There can be no question that
consumers encountering Defendants’ DUKE Logo on Spreads (including but not limited to spreads
made with mayonnaise) in grocery stores will mistakenly believe that those products are sponsored
by, affiliated with, or otherwise connected to Duke’s and the famous DUKE’S Marks, when they
are not.
58. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Duke’s is currently aware of six instances
of actual consumer confusion within the past year where consumers have contacted Duke’s
customer service to inquire about Defendants’ products.
59. Defendants’ conduct has also led to actual confusion among the media, even in
Defendants’ hometown. For example, in an article published in The Greenville News about a
recent lawsuit in which Defendants were involved, a reporter mistakenly stated that Defendants
are “the brand behind DUKE’s mayonnaise” and linked to the genuine Duke’s website. A true
and correct copy of that article is attached as Exhibit J to the Complaint.
B. Defendants’ Other Efforts to Confuse or Deceive Consumers into Mistakenly

Believing Defendants Own or are Affiliated with the famous DUKE’S Brand
60. In addition to the conduct listed above, Defendants’ promotion and advertisement
of their goods and services takes every opportunity to create a false link between Defendants and
the famous DUKE’S Marks and branding in the minds of consumers.
12

61. For example, in connection with their sales of spreads and other packaged goods to
grocery stores, Defendants hold themselves out to the public and commercial customers using the
brands DUKE FOODS and DUKE BRANDS, deliberately dropping the words SANDWICH
COMPANY from their name. By incorporating the dominant DUKE element with generic words
such as FOODS or BRANDS, Defendants create a likelihood that consumers will see those brands
and incorrectly assume the entities associated with them either offer the famous DUKE’S branded
products or are at least affiliated with the entity that does.
62. Defendants also use the infringing DUKE BRANDS and DUKE FOODS brands in
connection with Spreads and other packaged foods in a cursive font designed to mimic the
DUKE’S Marks, as shown below (“DUKE Brands”):
Defendants’ Additional Duke Brands
Plaintiff’s Duke Mark
63. Defendants further entrench that mistaken connection between their business and
the famous DUKE’S Marks when recounting their claimed company history. Specifically, on at
least Defendants’ webpages hosted at <dukebrands.com>, <dukesandwich.com>, and
<dukefoods.com>, Defendants take every opportunity to tie themselves to Mrs. Eugenia Duke and
13

the famous DUKE’S mayonnaise, falsely suggesting to consumers that some relationship between
Defendants and Duke’s/the famous DUKE’S Marks continues today. See, e.g., Ex. K to the
Complaint (screenshot from “history” subpage on <dukefoods.com>, which states “So popular
were Eugenia’s recipes that her sandwiches enjoy near-legendary status, and her delectable
mayonnaise has become the very flavor of the South”); Ex. L to the Complaint (screenshot from
“100 years” subpage on <dukesandwich.com>, which states the same).
64. Defendants promote that limited shared origin story without any disclaimer or
clarification that Defendants—which again are all DUKE named entities—are not actually
connected to Duke’s or the famous DUKE’S Marks, and do not own the recipe for DUKE’S
mayonnaise.
65. Defendants heavily promote this limited shared origin story, even though it has
been over 95 years since Defendants’ sandwich shop (even assuming their claim of a continuous
connection is accurate) could in any way claim it was connected to what Duke’s would build into
the famous DUKE’S Marks.
66. Defendants heavily promote this limited connection, even though any rights they
could possibly claim are limited to South Carolina, and they have done little to grow or promote
the DUKE SANDWICH COMPANY trademark, while Duke’s has invested significant time and
resources to expand and grow the DUKE’S Marks into a famous national brand.
C. Defendants’ Escalating Conduct and Infringing Registrations
67. Upon learning of the new DUKE Logo (created in late 2018), Duke’s investigated
Defendants’ use of DUKE. Defendants’ website and public records suggest that Defendants had
begun seeking to capitalize on the DUKE’S Marks, when upon information and belief, a new
14

generation of owners took over the sandwich restaurants located in South Carolina and began plans
to expand nationally.
68. For example, starting in 2005, Defendants filed a number of applications for
nationwide DUKE-formative trademarks with the USPTO and obtained the following
registrations:
Mark Reg. No. Goods and Services
4,531,158 Cl. 30: sandwiches
4,531,159 Cl. 43: restaurant services
4,531,161 Cl. 30: sandwiches
15

Mark Reg. No. Goods and Services
(collectively, the “DUKE Sandwich Registrations”).
69. Upon information and belief, Defendants obtained these registrations in an attempt
to expand their rights in the DUKE name beyond the limited right to use DUKE with sandwiches
and sandwich restaurants in South Carolina, in order to capitalize on, and in direct violation of,
Duke’s senior rights.
70. Defendants are not, however, entitled to the DUKE Sandwich Registrations and
possess no valid rights through them.
71. Duke’s prior entry into markets outside of South Carolina, not to mention its prior
federal registrations, give Duke’s nationwide priority in the DUKE’S Marks over Defendants.
72. Defendants DUKE Sandwich Registrations completely subsume the dominant
identical DUKE element that makes up the famous DUKE’S Marks, and the DUKE Sandwich
Registrations are registered in connection with goods that are related to or within the zone of
natural expansion of Duke’s goods. Defendants’ use of the DUKE Sandwich Registrations
16

nationwide is therefore likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, and/or deception as to the
source, origin, affiliation, sponsorship, or other relationship between Defendants’ and their
products, on the one hand, and Duke’s and its DUKE’S products, on the other hand.
73. That likelihood of confusion is exacerbated by at least the facts that the DUKE
Sandwich Registrations are not limited in channels of trade, and to the extent they are registered
as word marks, would seemingly permit Defendants to use any font, including the famous
DUKE’S script that Duke’s uses with the famous DUKE’S Marks. In fact, a side-by-side
comparison of Defendants’ registered logo with Duke’s DUKE’S Marks confirm that Defendants
are in fact using fonts and color schemes that are confusingly similar to and dilute Duke’s senior
rights:
(Duke’s DUKE’S Mark) (Defendants’ Infringing DUKE Registration)
Harm to Duke’s and the Famous DUKE’S Marks
74. Upon information and belief, to increase sales of their products and to gain a
competitive advantage, Defendants are using the DUKE Logo and DUKE Brands and using and
registering the DUKE Sandwich Registrations (collectively, “Infringing Marks”) in order to trade
off the goodwill embodied in the famous DUKE’S Marks.
75. Duke’s has suffered, and will continue to suffer, reputational harm as a result of
Defendants’ conduct. As noted above, consumers immediately associate the famous DUKE’S
17

Marks with Duke’s and therefore will immediately ascribe to Duke’s any faults, defects, or other
issues and disappointments with Defendants’ goods and services offered and sold in connection
with the Infringing Marks. Moreover, Duke’s has no control over the quality or types of
ingredients included in Defendants’ goods offered and sold in connection with the Infringing
Marks. This lack of control opens Duke’s up to further injury and harm should Defendants’
include ingredients that are of poor quality or otherwise unappealing to consumers. For example,
whereas Duke’s classic DUKE’s mayonnaise sold in grocery stores is sugar free, several of
Defendants’ Spreads sold in connection with the Infringing Marks contain either sugar or high
fructose corn syrup.
76. Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendants’ unlawful conduct has likely
caused, and will likely cause, Duke’s to lose potential customers and sales of its DUKE’S branded
products and/or it is likely that sales have been diverted and will continued to be diverted to
Defendants that Duke’s likely would have otherwise made, for at least the reasons that consumers
encountering Defendants’ Spreads branded with the Infringing Marks will believe they are buying
authentic DUKE’S spreads and will do so in lieu of purchasing the ingredients necessary to make
their own spreads.
77. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks also dilutes, either by blurring or
tarnishing, the famous DUKE’S Marks, thereby jeopardizing Duke’s goodwill and investment in
those Marks.
78. Duke’s is and will continue to be irreparably harmed by Defendants’ misconduct
as set forth above unless Defendants are enjoined by the Court.
18

COUNT I
Federal Trademark Infringement
Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
79. Duke’s hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-78 as though expressly
stated herein.
80. Defendants are using the Infringing Marks, which include reproductions,
counterfeits, copies, or colorable imitations of Duke’s registered DUKE’S Marks, in commerce in
connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, and/or advertising of goods and services,
including but not limited to restaurant services, sandwiches, and spreads, that do not originate with
and are not sponsored by or affiliated with Duke’s.
81. Defendants are applying the Infringing Marks, which include reproductions,
counterfeits, copies, or colorable imitations of Duke’s registered DUKE’S Marks, in
advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for
sale, distribution, or advertising of goods and services, including but not limited to restaurant
services, sandwiches, and spreads, that are not sponsored by or affiliated with Duke’s.
82. Defendants’ actions, including without limitation by selling goods and services in
trademark classes registered by Duke’s or within the natural zone of expansion of those classes
and the goods and services within, are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or as to the source of
origin of the goods offered by Defendants in connection with the Infringing Marks, in that
customers and potential customers are likely to believe that those goods offered by Defendants in
connection with a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of Duke’s registered
DUKE’S Marks are provided by, sponsored by, approved by, licensed by, affiliated or associated
with, or in some other way legitimately connected to Duke’s.
19

83. Defendants’ actions are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception, in that
customers and potential customers are likely to believe there is sponsorship, approval, licensing,
affiliation, association, or some legitimate connection between the goods provided by Defendants
in connection with the Infringing Marks and Duke’s, when there is no such relationship.
84. In fact, Defendants’ action have already caused confusion, mistake, or deception as
to the affiliation, connection, or sponsorship of the goods and services offered by Defendants
among the consuming public, who have mistakenly believed that the goods and services offered
by Defendants in connection with reproductions, counterfeits, copies, or colorable imitations of
Duke’s famous registered DUKE’S Marks were provided by, sponsored by, approved by, licensed
by, affiliated or associated with, or in some other way legitimately connected to Duke’s and the
famous DUKE’S brand. Moreover, there has been at least one instance of actual confusion by the
media, which mistakenly reported that Defendants are the company that offers Duke’s famous
DUKE’S branded mayonnaise.
85. The likely confusion, mistake, or deception caused by Defendants is willful and is
in violation of section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
86. As a direct and proximate result of the likely confusion, mistake, or deception,
Duke’s has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm if Defendants’ conduct is not
enjoined.
COUNT II
Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin
Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125)
stated herein.
20

88. Defendants’ actions constitute use of terms, names, symbols, and devices, and use
of false designations of origin, all of which are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as
to the source of origin of the goods provided by Defendant, in that customers and potential
customers are likely to believe that such goods are provided by, sponsored by, approved by,
licensed by, affiliated or associated with, or in some other way legitimately connected to Duke’s.
89. Defendants’ actions are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception, in that
customers and potential customers are likely to believe there is sponsorship, approval, licensing,
affiliation, association, or some legitimate connection between the goods provided by Defendants
in connection with the Infringing Marks and Duke’s, when there is no such relationship.
90. In fact, Defendants’ action have already caused confusion, mistake, or deception as
to the affiliation, connection, or sponsorship of the goods and services offered by Defendants
among the consuming public, who have mistakenly believed that the goods and services offered
by Defendants in connection with reproductions, counterfeits, copies, or colorable imitations of
Duke’s famous DUKE’S Marks were provided by, sponsored by, approved by, licensed by,
affiliated or associated with, or in some other way legitimately connected to Duke’s and the famous
DUKE’S brand. Moreover, there has been at least one instance of actual confusion by the media,
which mistakenly reported that Defendants are the company that offers Duke’s famous DUKE’S
branded mayonnaise.
91. Upon information and belief, Defendants have engaged in this conduct for the
purpose of misleading consumers into believing that Defendants’ products are sponsored by,
affiliated with, or otherwise connected to the famous DUKE’S brand.
92. The likely confusion, mistake, or deception caused by Defendants is willful and is
in violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
21

93. As a direct and proximate result of the likely confusion, mistake, or deception,
Duke’s has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm if Defendants’ conduct is not
enjoined.
COUNT III
Federal Trademark Dilution
Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))
stated herein.
95. The DUKE’S Marks are famous trademarks within the meaning of 15 U.S.C.
§ 1125(c), and became famous before Defendants began using the Infringing Marks in connection
with its goods. The DUKE’S Marks are advertised and used extensively throughout the United
States, and are highly recognized by the trade and consuming public. Further, Duke’s actively
polices the use of those Marks by third parties.
96. Defendants are engaged in commercial use of the Infringing Marks.
97. Defendants’ actions are disparaging and damaging, and are likely to cause dilution
of the DUKE’S Marks through, at the very least, blurring and tarnishing.
98. Defendants’ actions are likely to dilute by blurring the DUKE’S Marks by
impairing the distinctiveness of those Marks.
99. Defendants’ actions are likely to dilute by tarnishing the DUKE’S Marks by, at
least, using the Infringing Marks to sell goods that do not live up to the high standards set for goods
and services offered under the DUKE’S Marks.
100. As a result of Defendants’ likely dilution, Duke’s has suffered, and will continue to
suffer, irreparable injury and substantial damages, while Defendants have been and will continue
to be unjustly enriched.
22

101. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ dilution of the DUKE’S Marks are and
were willful.
102. The likely dilution of the DUKE’S Marks caused by Defendants violates section
43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
COUNT IV
Cancellation of the DUKE Sandwich Registrations
stated herein.
104. Duke’s has priority in the famous DUKE’s Marks over Defendants and Defendants’
DUKE Sandwich Registrations based both on prior actual use outside of South Carolina as well as
prior federal applications and registrations.
105. The DUKE Sandwich Registrations are confusingly similar to Duke’s senior,
famous DUKE’S Marks for several reasons, including but not limited to as a result of the shared
virtually identical and dominant DUKE and DUKE’S elements; the closely related goods and/or
goods within the zone of natural expansion of one another; the lack of limitation on channels of
trade in the DUKE Sandwich Registrations; and the registration of certain of the DUKE Sandwich
Registrations as word marks, which would allow use of those marks with logo treatments and/or
fonts that are confusingly similar to Duke’s senior DUKE’S Marks.
106. Duke’s will be irreparably damaged by the continued registration of the DUKE
Sandwich Registrations based at least on the likelihood of confusion caused by those registrations.
107. The DUKE Sandwich Registrations should therefore be cancelled pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 1064 and § 1119.
23

COUNT VII
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1)
stated herein.
109. Defendants have engaged, and are engaging, in unfair and deceptive trade practices
in the course of their businesses by using and/or registering the Infringing Marks in connection
with their goods and services and in a manner that causes a likelihood that consumers in the State
of North Carolina will be confused about and/or misunderstand the source, sponsorship, approval,
or certification of Defendants’ goods and services; the affiliation, connection, or association with
or certification by Duke’s of Defendants and/or Defendants’ goods or services; and/or that
Defendants’ goods or services have sponsorship or approval by Duke’s, when they do not.
110. Defendants have also engaged, and are engaging, in unfair and deceptive trade
practices by using the parties’ limited shared origin in order to falsely suggest to consumers that
Defendants and their goods and services on the one hand are connected to, affiliated with, or
otherwise related to Duke’s and the famous DUKE’S brand when they are not.
111. Defendants have also engaged, and are engaging, in unfair and deceptive trade
practices by using the distinct script font that Duke’s uses with its famous DUKE’S Marks as well
as the same color scheme and circle treatment that Duke’s uses with, among other things, its
famous DUKE’S branded mayonnaise.
112. Defendants willfully, deliberately, and/or intentionally engaged, and are engaging,
in deceptive and unfair trade practices in the State of North Carolina by engaging in the conduct
described above with full knowledge of Duke’s superior rights and prior and continued use of the
famous DUKE’S Marks.
24

113. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, deliberate, and/or
intentional deceptive and unfair trade practices, Duke’s has suffered, and will continue to suffer,
irreparable harm if Defendants’ conduct is not enjoined.
114. Defendants’ intentional, willful, and/or deliberate deceptive and unfair trade
practices violate Section 75-1.1 of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
115. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks constitutes common law trademark
infringement and unfair competition in violation of common law.
COUNT VIII
Common Law Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin
stated herein.
117. The famous DUKE’S Marks are distinctive marks that are eligible for protection
under North Carolina common law.
118. Duke’s has used the famous DUKE’S Marks in commerce in North Carolina long
before Defendants began using the Infringing Marks in commerce in North Carolina.
119. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks has caused, and is likely to continue to
cause, confusion with the famous DUKE’S Marks, and it constitutes unfair competition and false
designation of origin in violation of Duke’s rights.
120. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ acts of common law trademark
infringement and unfair competition have been done willfully and deliberately, and Defendants
have profited and been unjustly enriched by sales that Defendants would not otherwise have made
if not for their unlawful conduct.
121. Defendants’ willful and deliberate acts described above have caused injury and
damages to Duke’s, and have caused irreparable injury to Duke’s goodwill and reputation and,
25

unless enjoined, will cause further irreparable injury, whereby Duke’s has no adequate remedy at
law.
JURY DEMAND
Duke’s respectfully requests a jury trial for this matter.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Duke’s prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
A. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining Defendants, their
directors, members, officers, agents, servants, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all
persons in active concert or participation with, through, or under any of them, at first during the
pendency of this action and thereafter perpetually:
i. from committing any acts of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair
competition, and from implying a false designation of origin or a false description
or representation with respect to the famous DUKE’S Marks;
ii. from using in any manner packaging, labels, signs, literature, display cards, Internet
website, or other packaging, advertising, or promotional materials, or other
materials the Infringing Marks or any other marks, words, or names that are
confusingly similar to the famous DUKE’S Marks;
iii. from making any statements on promotional materials or advertising for its goods
or services that are false or misleading as to source or origin or affiliation with,
sponsorship by, or connection to Duke’s, including but not limited to references to
the parties’ limited shared origin;
iv. from using the distinctive script font and/or color scheme used by Duke’s in
connection with any of the famous DUKE’s Marks; and
26

v. from using any designation that is likely to disparage, tarnish or dilute the
distinctive quality of the famous DUKE’S Marks.
B. Requiring that Defendants deliver up to Duke’s any and all containers, signs, packaging
materials, printing plates, and advertising or promotional materials and any materials used
in the preparation thereof, which in any way unlawfully use or make reference to the
Infringing Marks, or any of Duke’s DUKE’S Marks.
C. Requiring that Defendant, within thirty (30) days after service of notice of entry of
judgment or issuance of an injunction pursuant thereto, file with the Court and serve upon
Duke’s counsel a written report under oath setting forth details of the manner in which
Defendants has complied with the Court’s order pursuant to paragraphs A through B
above.
D. Transferring all DUKE-formative domain names owned by Defendants to Duke’s.
E. Requiring Defendants pay over to Duke’s all damages sustained by Duke’s as a result of
Defendants’ willful infringement and unfair competition, and pay to Duke’s an accounting
of Defendants’ profits, Duke’s attorney’s fees and costs, and ordering that the amount of
damages awarded to Duke’s be increased three times the amount thereof pursuant to 15
U.S.C. §§ 1117(b) and 1125.
F. Ordering that Duke’s recover the costs of this action, together with reasonable attorney’s
fees and prejudgment interest in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
G. Ordering that Defendants’ federal registrations for DUKE SANDWICH COMPANY
QUALITY SINCE 1917 and Design (Registration Nos. 4,531,158; 4,531,160), DUKE
SANDWICH (Registration Nos. 4,531,158; 4,531,160), and DUKE SANDWICH
27

COMPANY and Dog Design (Registration No. 4,531,162) be cancelled pursuant to the
Lanham Act.
H. Ordering Defendants to withdraw any state or federal trademark registrations or
applications for state trademark registrations incorporating the Infringing Marks to the
extent that there are any state registrations that this Court cannot order for cancellation,
and Ordering Defendants not to file for any such trademarks in the future.
I. Awarding Duke’s damages, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, that it has incurred as a
direct and proximate result of Defendants’ use and/or registration of the Infringing Marks.
J. Awarding Duke’s punitive damages.
K. Awarding Duke’s such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated this 4th day of October, 2019.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert A. Muckenfuss

Robert A. Muckenfuss (Bar No. 28218)
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
Fifth Third Center
201 North Tryon Street
Suite 3000
Charlotte, NC 28202
T: (704) 343-2052
F: (704) 444-8707
E-mail: rmuckenfuss@mcguirewoods.com
Attorneys for Sauer Brands, Inc.
28

Exhibit A
Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1-1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 55

Evidence Photographs VEC#2019/0883
Case #MGW020.19.I
1 container of Duke Chicken Salad, $3.99
Product Purchased from BI-LO #5413
2924 Mt. Holly - Huntersville Road
Charlotte, NC 28214
13620 Reese Blvd. East, Ste. 135 Huntersville, NC 28078 (t) 704.895.3939 (f) 704.895.3931 www.vaudra.com
Case #MGW020.19.I
1 container of Duke Cream Cheese Pineapple Pecan Spread, $3.99
Charlotte, NC 28214
Case #MGW020.19.I
1 container of Duke Egg Salad, $3.99
Charlotte, NC 28214
Case #MGW020.19.I
1 container of Duke Pimento Cheese, $3.99
Charlotte, NC 28214
Ingles Markets #146
715 W Trade St
Dallas, NC 28034
Store Product Photographs
Ingles Markets #46
1205 Gastonia Hwy.
Bessemer City, NC 28016
BI-LO #5582
421 Hwy. 27 South
Stanley, NC 28164
BI-LO #5633
2601 South New Hope Road
Gastonia, NC 28056
BI-LO #5413
Charlotte, NC 28214
Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit G

Exhibit H

Exhibit I

10 unique ways to use Duke's Mayonnaise | Southern Kitchen https://www.southernkitchen.com/articles/eat/10-unique-ways-to-use-duk...
Time to bust out your favorite rib-sticking recipes! (https://www.southernkitchen.com/tag/grilled/articles)
(/)
1 of 3 10/2/2019, 4:32 PM
(/)
(/categories/eat)
2 of 3 10/2/2019, 4:32 PM
(/)
Recipes (/recipes) Goods (/goods) Privacy Policy (/privacy-

policy)
Share a recipe Terms and Conditions
Eat (/categories/eat) (/recipes/new) (/terms-and-conditions)
Feedback
Drink (/categories/drink) About us (/landing- (https://www.surveymonkey.com
page/about-us) /r/southernkitchen)
Content requests (/landing-
Entertain (/categories Contact us (/landing- page/requests-for-removing-
/entertain) page/contact-us) content-or-links)
(https://twitter.com
(https://www.facebook.com(https://www.youtube.com
(https://www.instagram.com
(https://www.pinterest.com
/southkitch)
/SouthernKitchen/) /SouthernKitchenVideos)
/southkitch) /southkitch/)
3 of 3 10/2/2019, 4:32 PM
10/2/2019 Duke’s Mayonnaise: Secret Weapon for Tasty Southern Cooking | Delishably
Duke’s Mayonnaise: Secret Weapon for Tasty Southern

Cooking
Updated on May 21, 2019
rmcrayne more
Rose Mary's mother and all of her aunts are great Southern cooks. She likes to think she's not so bad herself.
Contact Author
A Lifelong Love
I guess I've always loved Duke’s mayonnaise. I used to eat it out of the jar with a spoon when I was a small child, or so I’m told. As an adult, of course, I
know that mayonnaise is highly caloric and should be consumed only occasionally or sparingly. (Wink, wink.)
These days, I certainly don’t eat mayo daily—but I do embrace any excuse to enjoy Duke’s. There are certain foods or recipes, like classic Southern potato
salad and coleslaw, that require mayo, and this brand makes all the difference in the world.
Duke's mayonnaise is the best! It's made in Greenville, South Carolina. | Source
According to the "our history" page on the company website, Duke’s mayonnaise was created in 1917 by Eugenia Duke of Greenville, South Carolina. In
1929, Ms. Duke sold her company to the C.F. Sauer Company of Richmond, Virginia, but for some years afterward she still served as the company's
mayonnaise spokesperson. To this day, the company has kept Ms. Duke's original recipe, and they still make it in its birthplace of Greenville, SC.
Today, it is easy to obtain Duke’s mayonnaise. I can get it near my house at HEB Central Market. It is also available online; for example, from Amazon.

https://delishably.com/sauces-preserves/Dukes-Mayonnaise-Secret-in-Southern-Dishes 1/4
When I first joined the Air Force, however, it was not widely available. When I drove to Illinois for my first duty assignment, I had four jars of Duke’s in the
trunk of my car. Unfortunately, it snowed within two days of my arrival, and the jars were still in my trunk. I found out that mayo separates when frozen and
thawed. I could have cried!
In this article, I am sharing some of my favorite foods and recipes that incorporate the great taste of Duke’s, a staple of kitchens throughout the Southeast for
great Southern cooking. I hope you enjoy!
MARGARET MINNICKS CHRISTYMARIEKENT VESPA WOOLF
Mayonnaise or How to Properly The Best

Sandwiches MAVEN
Miracle Whip: The Cook Southern Homemade
Click thumbnail to view full-size Differences Cornbread Mexican Salsa R…
Tomato sandwich made with Duke's mayo on sourdough bread | Source
Sandwich Recipes
Tomato Sandwich
Nothing's better than a tomato sandwich with a ripe, garden-grown tomato. I like this on thin white sandwich bread because I don’t want the bread to distract
from the tomatoes. Spread the Duke’s, add the sliced tomatoes, and sprinkle with salt and pepper. It's also great with a slice or two of thin “boiled” ham.
Banana Sandwich
I like my banana sandwich on oatnut bread, such as Oroweat Oatnut. The bread is a bit heavier and larger than white bread, but the flavor profile is perfect
for a banana sandwich. Spread the mayo liberally.
Open-Faced Chicken Sandwich

Spread bread with Duke’s. Top with steamed broccoli spears, cut into thin strips lengthwise. Add boned chicken breast and top with cheese. Heat until the
cheese melts.
Salads
Click thumbnail to view full-size
Chicken salad with golden raisins | Source
Salad Recipes
Tuna Salad
I like my tuna salad on Wasa crackers, or just by itself. Sometimes I use sweet pickle, sometimes dill. I add pickle, a mashed boiled egg, and Duke’s. I also
like it with diced onion and cucumbers.
Chicken Salad
As with tuna salad, I sometimes make chicken salad with sweet pickle; other times I make it with dill. More often, I use dill pickle, tiny diced celery, mashed
boiled egg, mayo, and a tablespoon or two of vinegar. I eat it as a sandwich or on saltine crackers.
Chicken Salad With Raisins, Walnuts, and Pineapple

For a sweet chicken salad, use golden raisins, English walnuts, crushed pineapple, and Duke’s. This one does nicely on a salad plate with fruit.
Potato Salad
I use red potatoes, Claussen’s pickles, boiled eggs, sweet onion, green olives, Dijon mustard, and Duke’s mayo in my potato salad. Don’t use a chopper for
the pickle or onion because the texture gets lost. See my article, "Thanksgiving Southern Family Feast Recipes" for my potato salad recipe.
Pasta Salad
I like pasta salad with Duke’s mayo, not vinaigrette, and I call it noodle salad. I like tri-color spiral pasta or shells. I use tomatoes, sweet onion, and
cucumbers. As with potato salad, I do not use a chopper because the vegetable texture disappears. Also, cook the pasta with ample salt, and try to salt the
vegetables and set aside for 30 to 60 minutes before mixing all of the ingredients together. At our house, we like this with tuna, as well.
Slaw
The packaged mix for slaw dressing, usually on the produce aisle, is really quite good, prepared with Duke’s, of course. I like the finely shredded cabbage,
but the kind with coarsely shredded carrots and purple cabbage is good, too. Just add sweet onion and maybe a smidge of sweet pickle relish.
Cucumber Salad
MARGARET MINNICKS CHRISTYMARIEKENT VESPA WOOLF
My grandmother always made cucumber salad to go over the top of green beans. Make a sauce of Duke’s mayo, vinegar, and water. Granny used straight
Mayonnaise or How to Properly The Best
vinegar, which is too strong for me. Try about ½ cup of mayo, ¼ cup white or Champagne vinegar, and ¼ cup of water. Whisk to blend and add salt to taste.
MAVEN
Add 6 chopped baby cucumbers or equivalentMiracle Whip:
and about The
½ cup chopped sweet onions. Cook Southern Homemade
Differences Cornbread Mexican Salsa R…
Dips, Spreads, Dressings & Sauces
Romaine and spinach salad with bacon and ranch dressing | Source
Dip, Spread, Dressing & Sauce Recipes

Hidden Valley Ranch Dressing & Dip
Use Duke’s mayo with dry packaged Hidden Valley Ranch Dressing mix. This is so much better than bottled dressing! I might make it with 1½ cups plain
yogurt and ½ cup mayo. This is immediately thick and ready to use, unlike when you make it with milk and it has to set. I like ranch on a salad with romaine,
grape tomatoes, baby cucumbers, and rotisserie chicken. This also works great as a dip with baby carrots or another favorite vegetable.
Other Dips
I love dip mixes from Hampe House in Gruene Texas, especially the Chili Con Queso Dip mix. Hampe House was sold and they no longer carry the dips, but
I found another source: The Old Mill. I also collect dip mixes from the shops in Fredericksburg, Texas. Most of the dips call for 2 cups of sour cream, but I
tend to use plain yogurt and ½ cup of Duke’s. Sometimes I add a couple of tablespoons of sour cream, as well.
Mock Hollandaise Sauce

Blend Duke’s mayo with lemon juice. This is the best thing that ever happened to steamed broccoli. Sometimes I use this to spread on bread, just as I would
plain mayo, for a sandwich.
Pimento Cheese Spread

Make your own pimento cheese with your favorite cheese or mixture of cheeses. Shred the cheese and combine with finely diced pimentos. Stir in mayo until
it has reached the desired consistency.
Hot Dishes
Chicken Divan made with mayo and cream soup | Source
Hot Dish Recipes

Chicken Divan
Chicken Divan is a decadent treat made with rice, chicken breast, cream soup, and Duke’s mayonnaise. See my article, "Eight Quick and Easy Chicken,
Tuna, and Beef Casseroles" for the recipe.
Broccoli or Squash Casserole

Many broccoli casseroles are a variation of the following recipe: 2 boxes of frozen chopped broccoli, 1 can of cream soup, 1 to 1½ cups of grated sharp
cheddar cheese, and ½ to 1 cup of mayo. A small chopped onion and 1 to 2 beaten eggs are also common ingredients. Crushed Ritz crackers are a common
topper, or buttered saltine crackers. Classic Southern cooking!
Squash casseroles follow the same formula. Use several yellow squashes, sliced and cooked until soft.

Further Reading
Want to learn more? Here are a few articles that contain fascinating information about Duke's!
Castle, Sheri. "Why Southerners Have an Obsession With Duke’s Mayonnaise." SouthernLiving.com.
Dieterle, Jarrett, and Maria Ribas. "WorthMARGARET
the Whisk:MINNICKS CHRISTYMARIEKENT
How the Woman Behind Duke's Mayo Became a Tycoon." NPR.org. VESPA WOOLF
"Duke's Mayonnaise." Wikipedia.com.

MAVEN Mayonnaise or How to Properly The Best
Miracle Whip: The Cook Southern Homemade
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Differences Cornbread Mexican Salsa R…
Ask the author a question Ask

10/4/2019 Chef Alex Stupak shares his pick for best mayonnaise.
Menu
NATURAL-BORN BUTTON PUSHERS
PICKS
I Only Use This Zingy Southern

Mayonnaise Now
I have been of icially converted for a host of reasons.
By STRATEGIST EDITORS
SEPT 17, 2019 • 6:30 AM
TWEET
SHARE
COMMENT

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/09/chef-alex-stupak-best-mayonnaise-dukes.html 1/7
For deviled eggs, BLTs, or the zippiest coleslaw you’ve ever tasted.
Photo courtesy of The Strategist
This article is published through a partnership with New York Media’s Strategist. The
partnership is designed to surface the most useful, expert recommendations for things to
buy across the vast e-commerce landscape. We update links when possible, but note that
deals can expire and all prices are subject to change. Every editorial product is independently selected by New
York Media. If you buy something through our links, Slate and New York Media may earn an af iliate commission.
Recently in Picks
1 A Gift for Every Type of Boyfriend
2 This Lump of Coal Replaced My Brita
3 The BMW of Umbrellas Is Now on Sale
4 The 5 Waterproof Socks I Wear to Go Kayaking, Hiking, and Skiing
By Alex Stupak
Strategist Contributor
We asked chef Alex Stupak of Empellón (Cocina, Taqueria, and al Pastor)

what his favorite condiment is. Here’s what he told us:
I have always had a very unhealthy relationship with mayonnaise. I don’t

even consider it a condiment — I consider it an ingredient. Mayo pops up on
all of our menus, from the lime mayo on our ish taco at Empellón Taqueria
to these chorizo-wrapped Scotch eggs (as a dip) for the tasting table at
Empellón Cocina. I had always been a Hellmann’s person (Best Foods, if
you’re a West Coaster), but recently one of my chefs who is from the South
bought me a jar of mayonnaise to try, and it was Duke’s. I have now been
of icially converted for a host of reasons.
There’s the look of it. It’s like a sauce: way shinier, way sexier, and a creamier
emulsion. It’s yellower, which is indicative of a higher percentage of egg yolks
— usually a mark of quality. It’s a lot more acidic, because Duke’s is the only
major mayonnaise company that has zero sugar added. You can use less of it
to get the full thwack of lavor. And from an economics perspective, you may
be interested in knowing that at some point about a decade ago all major
mayonnaise jars went from 32-ounce jars to 30-ounce jars — and
even raised their prices, while Duke’s jar sizes remained the same. For
practicality’s sake, too, 32 ounces just make sense — great for scaling recipes
that call for cups (8 ounces).
A lot of my new chefs will ask me why we don’t make our own mayonnaise.
Duke’s is just one of those things I don’t think we could make any better.
Now, all my restaurants just use Duke’s.
As told to Priya Krishna.

Dukes
Duke’s Mayonnaise
$18 (for two) from Amazon
Slate has relationships with various online retailers. If you buy something through our links, Slate may earn an af iliate
commission. We update links when possible, but note that deals can expire and all prices are subject to change. All prices
were up to date at the time of publication.
Tweet Share Comment
Strategist

Exhibit J

10/4/2019 Duke Foods says ex-VP leaked recipes to competitor Knott's Fine Foods
Duke Foods claims former VP leaked recipes to

competitor, now at risk of losing millions
Haley Walters, The Greenville News Published 11:59 a.m. ET Aug. 7, 2019 | Updated 6:58 p.m. ET Aug. 7, 2019
One of the Upstate's most recognizable food brands says its secret recipes are in the hands of a competitor.
Duke Foods, based in Easley, is suing its former vice president of sales for allegedly leaking recipe and pricing information to Knott's Fine Foods, a
competing food brand in the South.
The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 2 in Greenville County, says Wyatt Howard, former Duke Foods vice president, was terminated from his job May 31 after 17
months with the company. Upon leaving Duke, Howard became a sales agent for Knott's, a Tennessee company that makes food products similar
to Duke, "albeit with different recipes," the lawsuit states.
Duke is known for its branded products — wet salads, dips, salsas and pimento cheese — and holds private label agreements, which are strictly
confidential, according to the lawsuit. It's also the brand behind Duke's Mayonnaise (https://www.dukesmayo.com/stories/our-history/); that recipe was
sold to to C.F. Sauer Co. in 1929.
ADVERTISEMENT
"The company is committed to taking the legal action necessary to protect that information beginning with the filing of the current lawsuit," a statement
from Duke Foods states.
Duke claims
3 freeHoward
articlestransferred trade
left. Create yoursecrets,
account.including recipes, formulas and pricing, to his personal email address and shared the confidential
information about Duke products with his new employer.
Unlock special offers today.
Register
The lawsuit forwithout
also alleges, FREE. going into detail, that Howard obtained more confidential information after his job with Duke ended by misrepresenting
that he was still a Duke employee.
ADVERTISEMENT
Register Now
https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2019/08/07/duke-foods-says-ex-vp-leaked-recipes-competitor-knotts-fine-foods/1929271001/ 1/3
Duke claims Knott's was aware Howard shared confidential information with the company and knowingly used that information to attract Duke customers
to their brand.
Duke's lawsuit says the leak could cause "irreparable harm to Duke Foods" and the company stands to lose millions of dollars of business.
Get the News Alerts newsletter in your inbox.

Get alerted to the latest stories to stay on top of the news.
Delivery: Varies
Your Email
The lawsuit asks for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order against Howard and Knott's; it would force the defendants to stop using
any Duke recipes.
"An injunction is in the public interest, which aims for a competitive, fair business environment," the lawsuit states. "It is in the public interest to create a
business environment that protects South Carolina companies' valuable, proprietary, trade secret information."
Duke is demanding its recipes and pricing information be given back, along with Howard's personal laptop that he used for doing business with Duke.
Emails sent to Knott's executives asking for comment for this story were not returned. A call to a publicly listed phone number associated with Howard's
name was also not returned.
Haley Walters covers crime and breaking news. Email her at hwalters@gannett.com and follow her on Twitter @_haleywalters
3 free articles left. Create your account.

Register for FREE.
Register Now
DIG DEEPER
You might be interested in
Powdersville to get fourth grocery store as Aldi les rst permits

(https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2019/10/03/aldi-coming-powdersville-sc-city-fourth-grocery-
store/3847148002/?
utm_source=oembed&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=storylines&utm_content=news&utm_term=2949662002)
Property manager says 'cooperating fully' in Greenville Sheriff's HOA funds investigation
(https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/2019/10/03/simpsonville-sc-property-manager-cooperating-
missing-hoa-funds/3844041002/?
9 students arrested at Greenville SC gifted center after reports of threats

(https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2019/10/02/9-greenville-sc-students-arrested-sterling-school-
threaten-teacher/3841154002/?
Greenville County Council to keep closer tabs on Twin Chimneys Land ll after rules broken
(https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2019/10/02/greenville-county-council-to-step-up-oversight-of-
land ll/3836058002/?
West Greenville once 'wasn't a good place.' New affordable housing efforts have changed it
(https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/2019/10/02/affordable-housing-push-ignites-changes-west-
greenville-sc/3830348002/?
Read or Share this story: https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2019/08/07/duke-foods-says-ex-vp-leaked-recipes-competitor-knotts-fine-

foods/1929271001/
3 free articles left. Create your account.

Register for FREE.
Register Now
Exhibit K

Exhibit L


Sauer Brands V Duke's Sandwiches

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

Sauer Brands V Duke's Sandwiches

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT

SAUER BRANDS, INC. a/k/a DUKE’S,

Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 28

from a beloved local product into a household name.

now recognize the DUKE’S brand.

6. Similarly, Duke’s routinely licenses the DUKE’S Mark to restaurants because

beloved DUKE’S branded products.

9. Defendants—well-aware of the popularity and goodwill of the DUKE’S brand and

in the DUKE’S brand.

Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 2 of 28

indistinguishable from DUKE’S) without SANDWICH COMPANY, Defendants have adopted a

States, as shown below:

(DUKE’S Genuine Mayonnaise) (Defendants’ Infringing DUKE Spread)

11. Defendants are engaging in this conduct in flagrant disregard of Duke’s

undeniable prior intellectual property rights to the DUKE’S brand.

and still rapidly growing national reputation of the DUKE’S brand.

cancellation of Defendants’ unlawful federal trademark registrations.

Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 3 of 28

Charlotte, North Carolina.

maintains a place of business at 211 Pine Road, Easley, SC 29642.

maintains a place of business at 211 Pine Road, Easley, SC 29642.

place of business at 600 S Main Street, Greenville, SC, 29601.

Jurisdiction and Venue

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a), as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction); 28

substantially the same conduct by Defendant.

Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 4 of 28

representative examples of photographs showing Defendants’ infringing DUKE’S branded

the infringing products at issue in this case.

for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Duke’s and the Famous DUKE’S Brand and Family of Marks

business to Duke’s through a Bill of Sale (the “1929 Agreement”).

Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 5 of 28

distributed by the said partnership.” Ex. B to the Complaint, § 1.

or not registered may properly be used.” Id. § 3.

sandwich business, which she had previously sold. Id. § 4(a).

products, as shown in Exhibit C.

Mark Reg. No. Goods and First Use Reg. Date

1,650,276 Cl. 30: Tartar 1947 July 9, 1991

Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 6 of 28

3,600,687 Cl. 30: Barbecue 1979 April 7, 2009

as Exhibits D, E, F, G, and H to the Complaint. Together with Duke’s common-law trademarks

as depicted in Exhibit C to the Complaint, these are the DUKE’S Marks.

dressings in the United States.

Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 7 of 28

Marks quickly became staples in refrigerators across the country.

37. Accordingly, thanks to Duke’s dedication to excellence, advertising, and decades

Representative examples are attached as Exhibit I.

Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 8 of 28

sales of products advertised as containing DUKE’S brand mayonnaise.

Defendants’ Willful Infringement of Duke’s DUKE’S Marks

owned and operated a local sandwich business in the Greenville, SC area.

agreement in order to focus on her successful mayonnaise business.

business in and around Greenville, South Carolina.

sandwich business local and within the confines of South Carolina.

45. Defendants claim to be successors-in-interest to Mr. Hart’s South Carolina-based

company by establishing several restaurant locations” in the late 1970’s.

Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 9 of 28

“SANDWICH COMPANY”, and which does not sell in grocery stores.

in the DUKE’S Marks over the last 90 years.

A. Defendants’ Expansion into Duke’s Goods and Channels of Trade and

Case 3:19-cv-00508 Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 10 of 28