Chipotle v. Sweetgreen - Complaint

Case 8:23-cv-00596 Document 1 Filed 04/04/23 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:1
1 BRENT E. JOHNSON (SBN 133323)

2 bjohnson@hollandhart.com
HOLLAND & HART LLP
3 222 South Main Street, Suite 2200
4 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2194
Telephone: (801) 799-5800
5 Facsimile: (801) 799-5700
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc. and CMG Pepper, LLC
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 SOUTHERN DIVISION
11
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,
Case No. 8:23-CV-00596
12 and CMG PEPPER, LLC,
13 COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK

Plaintiff, INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK
14 v. DILUTION, FALSE DESIGNATION
15 OF ORIGIN, AND UNFAIR
SWEETGREEN, INC., COMPETITION
16
Defendant.
17 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
18
19 Plaintiffs Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and CMG Pepper, LLC (collectively
20 “Chipotle”) hereby submit this Complaint against Defendant Sweetgreen, Inc.
21 (“Sweetgreen”) and allege as follows:
22 INTRODUCTION
23 This is an action under the Lanham Act and related state laws, arising out of
24 Sweetgreen’s marketing and sales of a “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl.” Chipotle
25 and Sweetgreen are unaffiliated companies who compete in the “fast casual”
26 restaurant industry. Still, Sweetgreen is using Chipotle’s famous CHIPOTLE®
27 trademark to sell a product that is very similar and directly competitive to
28 Chipotle’s chicken burrito bowl. Sweetgreen’s conduct constitutes trademark
-1-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 infringement, trademark dilution, and false designation of origin, and deceptive

2 trade practice.
3 On discovering Sweetgreen’s infringing conduct, Chipotle sent a written
4 demand that Sweetgreen cease making use of the CHIPOTLE® trademark and re-
5 name its new product. Sweetgreen did not respond and continued its infringing
6 conduct.
7 This action follows.
8 THE PARTIES
9 1. Plaintiff Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
10 its principal place of business in Newport Beach, California.
11 2. Plaintiff CMG Pepper, LLC is a Colorado limited liability company
12 with its principal place of business in Newport Beach, California. CMG Pepper,
13 LLC is wholly owned by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
14 3. On information and belief, Defendant Sweetgreen, Inc. is a
15 Delaware corporation registered with the state of California, and with a principal
16 place of business at 3101 West Exposition Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90018.
17 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18 4. This action arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq.,
19 and supplemental state law. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
20 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338; and supplemental jurisdiction
21 over Chipotle’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
22 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sweetgreen because
23 Sweetgreen’s principal place of business is in California, and because this action
24 arises from Sweetgreen’s infringing and diluting activities within the State of
25 California.
26 6. Venue properly lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
27 § 1391 because a substantial part the events giving rise to the claims occurred
28 within this district.
-2-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2 Chipotle’s Launch and Use of its Famous CHIPOTLE® Trademark
3 7. In 1993, Steve Ells, a classically trained chef and graduate of the
4 Culinary Institute of America, founded Chipotle. He started using CHIPOTLE® as
5 a trademark and service mark in connection with his first restaurant at the corner of
6 Evans and Gilpin Streets in Denver, Colorado. Since the opening of the first
7 restaurant, Chipotle experienced rapid success, widespread customer acceptance,
8 and national recognition of Chipotle’s food services and products, all marketed and
9 sold in connection with the CHIPOTLE® trademark.
10 8. Currently, Chipotle owns and operates thousands of “fast-casual”
11 restaurants throughout the United States, Canada, and worldwide (including more
12 than 400 restaurants in California alone) all under the mark CHIPOTLE®.
13 9. Chipotle is committed to sourcing its ingredients in the most ethical

14 and sustainable manner possible, and has pioneered a movement in furtherance of
15 food with integrity. Chipotle communicates this commitment to its customers, and
16 Chipotle’s customers associate the CHIPOTLE® brand with this commitment to
17 ethical food sourcing as well as with high quality and attention to detail.
18 10. Chipotle’s menu features burritos, burrito bowls, tacos, quesadillas,
19 and salads. Among its menu items, Chipotle’s chicken burrito bowls are among its
20 most popular, which are typically made (at the customer’s option) with rice, black
21 beans, and salsa. See https://www.chipotle.com/order/build/burrito-bowl:
22
23 BUILD YOUR
24 BURRITO BOWL
25 Your cho,ce of freshly grilled meat or sofntas served in a delicious bowl w,th
ric . b ans. or faJ1ta vegg, s. and topped w,th guac. salsa. queso bl nco. sour
cream or cheese.
26
27
28
-3-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 11. Chipotle’s traditional marketing of its products emphasizes it use of

2 unprocessed “real” ingredients and in-house cooking. For example, Chipotle’s
3 website features an image of a burrito bowl, next to the text: “We do it by being
4 real.” See https://www.chipotle.com/values:
5
7
WE DO IT B'f BEING ~
Chlpotle was born of the radical belief that
there Is a connection between how food Is
8 raised and prepared, and how It tastes. Real
Is better. Better for You, Better for People,
9 Better for Our Planet. It may be t he hard
way to do things, but It's the right way.
10
11
12
13
12. From time to time, Chipotle promotes its products with special or
14
limited time offers. One longstanding Chipotle promotion occurs on “National
15
Burrito Day,” the first Thursday of April. See
16
https://www.chipotle.com/nationalburritoday (advertising Chipotle’s 2022
17
National Burrito Day promotion). This year, “National Burrito Day” falls on April
18
6, 2023; as it has in prior years, Chipotle is offering a limited time promotion for
19
the occasion.
20
13. Chipotle has invested tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of
21
thousands of hours to develop its restaurants, create and protect its intellectual
22
property, and create and maintain the goodwill of the CHIPOTLE® national brand.
23
14. In recognition of Chipotle’s exclusive right to use the mark
24
CHIPOTLE® in connection with Chipotle’s prepared food and related services, the
25
United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted Chipotle several trademark
26
and service mark registrations.
27
28
-4-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 15. CMG Pepper, LLC owns the following trademarks, which Chipotle
2 Mexican Grill, Inc. is duly authorized to use and enforce:
3
First Use in
Mark Description of Goods or Services Registration Date
4 Commerce
5 CHIPOTLE
Class 43 - restaurant services April 25, 2000 July 13, 1993
Reg. No. 2,344,423
6
7
Class 29 - prepared entrees
8 consisting primarily of chicken,
steak, carnitas, barbacoa or
9 vegetables; prepared vegetable-
based entrees; salads comprised
10 of lettuce and choice of meat,
11 beans, salsa, cheese and/or sour
cream; guacamole; sour cream;
CHIPOTLE
12 cooked beans; cheese October 28, 2008 1993
Reg. No. 3,523,738
13 Class 30 - burritos; tacos; fajita
burritos; salsas; tortillas; tortilla
14
chips; rice; salads comprised of
15 rice and choice of meat, beans,
salsa, cheese and/or sour cream;
16 prepared entrees consisting
primarily of rice
17
18
CHIPOTLE
19
(Stylized) Class 43 - restaurant services; January 12,
April 15, 2008
20 CHIP □ TLE take-out restaurant services 2007
21 Reg. No. 3,412,092
22
23 CHIPOTLE
(Stylized) Class 43 - restaurant services; August 28,
24 October 20, 2009
CHIPOTLE take-out restaurant services 2008
Reg. No. 3,698,498
25
26
27
28
-5-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1
CHIPOTLE
2
(Stylized)
3 Class 43 - restaurant services; August 28,
May 19, 2009
CHIPOTLE take-out restaurant services 2008
4
Reg. No. 3,622,272
5
6 16. Copies of Chipotle’s Trademark Registrations identified above are

7 filed concurrently as Exhibits 1-5. All of Chipotle’s registered and common law
8 rights to CHIPOTLE® are hereinafter referred to as the CHIPOTLE® Marks.
9 17. As a result of Chipotle’s extensive, long-standing, and exclusive use
10 of the CHIPOTLE® Marks, the CHIPOTLE® Marks have become famous in the
11 eyes of food shoppers and the general public. Plaintiff’s CHIPOTLE® Marks have
12 acquired substantial goodwill and are an extremely valuable commercial asset,
13 serving to identify and distinguish Chipotle’s restaurants and food items from
14 others available in the market.
15 Sweetgreen’s Infringing Conduct
16 18. Sweetgreen also operates “fast-casual” restaurants within the United
17 States, including restaurants throughout this District. Sweetgreen offers salads and
18 “warm bowls” on its menu.
19 19. On or about March 30, 2023, Sweetgreen launched a new menu
20 item: the “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl.”
21 20. Sweetgreen’s “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl” features very
22 similar ingredients to Chipotle’s burrito bowls, including chicken, a grain base
23 (such as rice), black beans, and salsa.
24 21. Sweetgreen displays “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl” or

25 alternatively “CHIPOTLE CHICKEN BURRITO BOWL” making prominent use
26 of the famous CHIPOTLE® trademark in numerous marketing channels, including
27 in and around its restaurants, on its website, and on social media platforms
28 including Instagram and Twitter.

-6-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 22. Sweetgreen displays and uses the term CHIPOTLE® as a

2 trademark, featuring it as the lead word in the item, capitalizing the first letter of
3 the word “Chipotle,” and on occasion displaying “CHIPOTLE” in all capital
4 letters. Sweetgreen’s use of CHIPOTLE® appears in the absence of any other
5 source-identifying name or trademark, as can be seen in the below pictures from
6 Sweetgreen’s website:
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 23. Other Sweetgreen advertisements for its copy-cat “Chipotle Chicken

17 Burrito Bowl” feature “CHIPOTLE” in a font nearly identical to Chipotle’s
18 stylized mark CHIPOTLE . In the screenshot of Sweetgreen’s website below, the
19 words “CHIPOTLE CHICKEN BURRITO BOWL” are prominently displayed, in
20 a font nearly identical to Chipotle’s stylized mark, roughly twice the height and
21 size of any other associated text, and in the absence of any other source-identifying
22 name or trademark:
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
8
CHIPOTLE CHICKEN BURRITO BOWL
9 Adeliciously hearty bowl featuring
an all-grains base, citrusy black
beans, and house-made Roas ed
10 Chipotle Salsa.
11 E:)
12
13 24. Sweetgreen’s advertisements also feature the CHIPOTLE® mark in

14 all capital letters, in a single line set apart from other words or phrases, and in light
15 lettering against a background that is nearly identical to Chipotle’s trademarked red
16 color, Adobo Red, and Chipotle’s stylized mark CHIPOTLE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 25. In the above advertisement, the letters used by Sweetgreen for

2 “CHIPOTLE” are prominently displayed, in a separate font, and roughly twice the
3 height and size of any other source-identifying name or trademark.
4 26. Sweetgreen’s social media presence confirms its intent to
5 affirmatively create a false association with the famous CHIPOTLE® restaurants
6 and trade off the famous CHIPOTLE® Marks.
7 27. For example, on March 30, 2023, Sweetgreen announced its
8 “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl” using the Instagram post below. In response to a
9 comment stating “Chipotle who?!” Sweetgreen replied “you said it, not us” and
10 included an emoji meant to indicate “zipped lips”:
11 sweetgreen O • follow
O.,g Jaud,o
12
sweetgreen O THIS IS OT A SALAD 1ntroducm9 our new
ch,potle chicken bum to bowl featuring wold rKe x2. blackened
13 chicken. hme-c,lantro black ~•ns. tomato. red onoon. ,hredded
cabbage. cilantro, and I roa,ted ch,potlt sal,a v,na,grettt. htrt
for I hm1 ted t1mt only. order now v11 the hnk ,n b,o.
14
15
hellolmcalt Ch1potle who?I 0
~ y
16
17
e sweetgreen O @hello,mca,t you said , not u, • O
hellolmc.olt @sweetgreen o
18
wrappedaroundcurly @h•llo1mca1t •xactlyl Loi 0
19 p
easvo voven I love when salads aren t salads

20
21
22
23
24 28. Another Instagram user commented on a Sweetgreen post about the

25 “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl”: “@chipotle get a load of this.” The user, tagging
26 Chipotle’s Instagram account, clearly understood the association Sweetgreen is
27 trying to draw between its product, Chipotle’s products, and the famous
28 CHIPOTLE® brand.
-9-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1
SWfftgrH n O • Follow
2 0ng ...1l<ld O
~ klmberty.n.morgan O @S\\ltt green. Continue tikU"9 my 0

money bKiU$t I can t cre,te a s.l~ u good at home
3 ,ty
4 •ltx•nd•rjbehm @ch1potle gtt. lo•d of thlS

2 R.i"Y
0
5 wellnesswhhkels @natahH_cr119 om9

p
0
6 acceswt l O OMG 0
7 sherrynemo O.hc1ous! Just had OM! 0
8 omfg Its rose & 0
9 spolled0703 WOYld try II 1f It WU brown nee instHd of WIid

0
"'"
10
1,745 likes
11
12 :t acommtnt
13
14 29. Additional evidence of Sweetgreen’s intent to trade off of

15 Chipotle’s goodwill exists. For example, Sweetgreen is running a promotional
16 event for the “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl” on April 6, 2023, purportedly in
17 honor of “National Burrito Day.” This promotion is clearly intended to copy and
18 trade off of Chipotle’s longstanding “National Burrito Day” promotion.
19 30. Not surprisingly, industry publications have commented on the
20 similarity between Sweetgreen’s new “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl” and
21 Chipotle’s well-known burrito bowl, both in terms of the product itself and in
22 terms of Sweetgreen’s usage of “Chipotle.” The press has explicitly recognized
23 Sweetgreen’s dish “veers directly into arch-rival Chipotle Mexican Grill’s
24 territory.”1
25
26
27 1 See “Sweetgreen pokes fast-casual rival with debut of a Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl,” RESTAURANT
BUSINESS, https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/food/sweetgreen-pokes-fast-casual-rival-debut-chipotle-
28 chicken-burrito-bowl (March 30, 2023).
-10-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 31. The same article notes Sweetgreen’s promotion of its new menu
2 item echoes Chipotle’s traditional marketing strategy, which centers around
3 unprocessed “real” ingredients and in-house cooking.
4 32. The same article discusses how Sweetgreen’s new “Chipotle
5 Chicken Burrito Bowl” is part of Sweetgreen’s “ongoing move to capture the
6 dinner depart,” in direct competition to Chipotle’s “enviable strength” across both
7 lunch and dinner concepts.
8 33. At no time has Sweetgreen sought or received permission or license
9 from Chipotle to use the CHIPOTLE® Marks.
10 34. Chipotle and Sweetgreen are unaffiliated companies who compete
11 in the “fast casual” restaurant industry. Sweetgreen is not authorized to use any of
12 Chipotle’s intellectual property.
13 35. Sweetgreen’s conduct is likely to cause confusion or mistake as to

14 the source of Sweetgreen’s “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl,” or as to an
15 affiliation, connection, association, sponsorship, or approval between Sweetgreen
16 and Chipotle, or as to the origin of Sweetgreen’s “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl.”
17 36. Sweetgreen uses CHIPOTLE® in prominent positions in its

18 advertising, in styles that imitate or directly copy Chipotle’s stylized marks, and in
19 advertisements that do not feature other source-identifying names or trademarks.
20 This conduct, coupled with Sweetgreen’s creation and launch of a competitive
21 menu item very similar to a well-known Chipotle menu item, and Sweetgreen’s
22 demonstrated intent to draw an association between its product and Chipotle’s
23 product and brand, can only be explained by a willingness to infringe Chipotle’s
24 intellectual property, confuse and/or deceive consumers, and wrongfully profit
25 from and trade off of Chipotle’s valuable goodwill and reputation in the
26 CHIPOTLE® Marks.
27
28
-11-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 Relevant History Between the Parties Preceding this Lawsuit

2 37. On or about March 30, 2023, Chipotle became aware of
3 Sweetgreen’s new advertising campaign for its “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl”
4 directly competitive to Chipotle’s chicken burrito bowl.
5 38. Thereafter, Chipotle contacted Sweetgreen via telephone call
6 between in-house counsel, and via written correspondence from outside litigation
7 counsel, informing it of Chipotle’s rights and requesting that Sweetgreen
8 immediately cease using the CHIPOTLE® Marks and re-name its menu item to
9 include, if necessary, a more appropriate fair use of the word “chipotle.”
10 39. Chipotle suggested that Sweetgreen re-name its menu item using
11 “chipotle” in lower-case, in a textual sentence, to accurately describe ingredients of
12 its menu item, such as “. . . with chipotle flavoring.” As one example, Chipotle
13 suggested that “chicken bowl with chipotle” may be a more appropriate name for
14 Sweetgreen’s new menu item.
15 40. Sweetgreen failed to respond to Chipotle’s letter and has continued
16 its infringing conduct, necessitating the instant action.
17 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18 (Trademark Infringement in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114)
19 41. Chipotle incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though set forth
20 fully herein.
21 42. Chipotle owns valid federal registrations for the CHIPOTLE®
22 Marks for, inter alia, take-out restaurant services and prepared chicken entrees.
23 43. Plaintiff’s registrations in the CHIPOTLE® Marks constitute prima
24 facie evidence of the validity of Chipotle’s trademark rights and of Chipotle’s
25 exclusive right to use the CHIPOTLE® Marks in commerce.
26 44. Sweetgreen’s unauthorized use of the term CHIPOTLE as a
27 trademark in connection with its restaurant services and sale of prepared chicken
28 entrees is likely to cause confusion or mistake as to the source, affiliation,
-12-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 connection, or association of Sweetgreen’s CHIPOTLE chicken items and

2 Chipotle, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Sweetgreen’s CHIPOTLE
3 chicken entrée product.
4 45. Sweetgreen’s conduct constitutes trademark infringement in
5 violation of § 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
6 46. By reason of Sweetgreen’s acts as alleged above, Chipotle has

7 suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm to the
8 value and goodwill of the CHIPOTLE® Marks, as well as irreparable harm to
9 Chipotle’s business, goodwill, and reputation. Chipotle has no adequate remedy at
10 law because damage to its goodwill and reputation are continuing and difficult to
11 ascertain.
12 47. Sweetgreen’s continued use of the CHIPOTLE mark is deliberate,

13 willful, fraudulent, and constitutes a knowing infringement of the CHIPOTLE®
14 Marks.
15 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

16 (Trademark Dilution in Violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(c))
18 fully herein.
19 49. Due to Chipotle’s long-standing, extensive, widespread, and
20 exclusive use of the CHIPOTLE® Marks, coupled with the millions of dollars
21 invested in marketing and promoting the CHIPOTLE® Marks nationwide, the
22 CHIPOTLE® Marks have become famous.
23 50. The similarity between Chipotle’s famous CHIPOTLE® Marks and
24 Sweetgreen’s use of CHIPOTLE in commerce creates a strong association between
25 the two in the minds of consumers.
26 51. Sweetgreen’s use of CHIPOTLE in connection with its prepared

27 chicken entrée is causing and is likely to cause dilution of Chipotle’s famous
28 CHIPOTLE® Marks, in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act,

-13-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
7 ascertain.

9 willful, fraudulent, and constitutes a knowing dilution of the CHIPOTLE® Marks.
10 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11 (False Designation of Origin in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
13 fully herein.
14 55. The CHIPOTLE® Marks are inherently distinctive or have acquired
15 distinctiveness among the relevant trade and public as identifying Plaintiff’s food
16 items and services.
17 56. Defendant’s use of CHIPOTLE as a trademark for its prepared
18 chicken entrée items is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive consumers
19 as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Sweetgreen’s CHIPOTLE
20 chicken items and Chipotle, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of
21 Sweetgreen’s CHIPOTLE chicken items by Plaintiff.
22 57. Sweetgreen’s use of CHIPOTLE in connection with its prepared

23 chicken entrée constitutes trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false
24 designation of origin in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
25 § 1125(c).


-14-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596

3 ascertain.
5 willful, fraudulent, and constitutes a knowing infringement of the CHIPOTLE®
6 Marks.
7 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8 (Unfair Competition under California Law)
10 fully herein.
11 61. Sweetgreen’s acts of trademark infringement and false designation
12 of origin constitute unfair competition with Chipotle under the common law and
13 statutory laws of the State of California, particularly California Business &
14 Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
15 62. Sweetgreen’s conduct is unfair because it allows Sweetgreen to
16 benefit unjustly by virtue of the goodwill and reputation associated with Chipotle,
17 its CHIPOTLE® Marks, and its goods and services. Sweetgreen has intentionally
18 violated, and continues to violate, Chipotle’s rights in the CHIPOTLE® Marks and
19 related commercial benefits.
20 63. Sweetgreen is willfully and deliberately misleading the public by
21 using in commerce reproductions, counterfeits, copies and/or colorable imitations
22 of Chipotle’s famous CHIPOTLE® Marks.
23 64. Sweetgreen’s conduct is likely to confuse the public as to whether
24 Sweetgreen’s goods and services are somehow related to, or approved or
25 sponsored by, Chipotle or vice versa; or that Sweetgreen is the senior use of the
26 CHIPOTLE® mark and that Chipotle is improperly using, copying, or infringing
27 Sweetgreen’s mark.
28 65. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Sweetgreen’s
-15-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 wrongful conduct, Sweetgreen has derived and received, and will continue to
2 derive and receive, gains, profits, and advantages from its unfair competition in an
3 amount that is not presently known to Chipotle.
4 66. By reason of Sweetgreen’s wrongful acts as alleged in this
5 Complaint, Chipotle has suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages.
6 67. Chipotle and the public have been, and continue to be, irreparably
7 damaged by violation of California common law and statutory law, and Chipotle
8 has no adequate remedy at law because damage to its goodwill and reputation are
9 continuing and difficult to ascertain. Unless enjoined, Sweetgreen’s unlawful
10 conduct will continue, further injuring Chipotle and confusing the public.
11 JURY DEMAND
12 68. Chipotle demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14 WHEREFORE, Chipotle requests that the Court enter Judgment in its favor
15 as follows:
16 1. Granting temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief

17 enjoining Sweetgreen and each of its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors,
18 agents, servants, and employees, and all others aiding, abetting, or acting in concert
19 therewith, from:
20 A. using the mark CHIPOTLE, or any other mark confusingly

21 similar thereto, in connection with the promotion of its
22 restaurant services, sale, or offer of sale of prepared food items;
23 and
24 B. otherwise competing unfairly or committing any acts likely to
25 confuse the public into believing that Sweetgreen or any of
26 Sweetgreen’s products are associated, affiliated, or sponsored
27 by Chipotle or are authorized by Chipotle, in whole or in part,
28 in any way.
-16-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596
1 2. Ordering that Sweetgreen account for and pay to Chipotle any and
2 all profits Sweetgreen has received by its conduct alleged herein;
3 3. Awarding to Chipotle any and all damages and losses suffered by
4 Chipotle as a result of Sweetgreen’s conduct as set forth herein, and treble such
5 damages as provided by law;
6 4. Awarding to Chipotle the costs of this action and its reasonable
7 attorneys’ fee and expenses;
8 5. Awarding to Chipotle pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on
9 all damages recovered by or awarded to it; and
10 6. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable,
11 just, and appropriate.
12
13 Dated: April 4, 2023

14 Respectfully Submitted,
15
16
/s/ Brent E. Johnson
17 Brent E. Johnson
18 HOLLAND & HART LLP
19
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Chipotle Mexican
20 Grill, Inc. and CMG Pepper, LLC
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-17-
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 8:23-CV-00596

Chipotle v. Sweetgreen - 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

Chipotle v. Sweetgreen - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:23-cv-00596 Document 1 Filed 04/04/23 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:1

1 BRENT E. JOHNSON (SBN 133323)

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK

1 infringement, trademark dilution, and false designation of origin, and deceptive

13 9. Chipotle is committed to sourcing its ingredients in the most ethical

1 11. Chipotle’s traditional marketing of its products emphasizes it use of

6 16. Copies of Chipotle’s Trademark Registrations identified above are

23 (such as rice), black beans, and salsa.

24 21. Sweetgreen displays “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl” or

26 of the famous CHIPOTLE® trademark in numerous marketing channels, including

28 including Instagram and Twitter.

1 22. Sweetgreen displays and uses the term CHIPOTLE® as a

16 23. Other Sweetgreen advertisements for its copy-cat “Chipotle Chicken

13 24. Sweetgreen’s advertisements also feature the CHIPOTLE® mark in

1 25. In the above advertisement, the letters used by Sweetgreen for

easvo voven I love when salads aren t salads

24 28. Another Instagram user commented on a Sweetgreen post about the

~ klmberty.n.morgan O @S\\ltt green. Continue tikU"9 my 0

4 •ltx•nd•rjbehm @ch1potle gtt. lo•d of thlS

5 wellnesswhhkels @natahH_cr119 om9

7 sherrynemo O.hc1ous! Just had OM! 0

8 omfg Its rose & 0

9 spolled0703 WOYld try II 1f It WU brown nee instHd of WIid

14 29. Additional evidence of Sweetgreen’s intent to trade off of

12 Chipotle’s intellectual property.

13 35. Sweetgreen’s conduct is likely to cause confusion or mistake as to

15 affiliation, connection, association, sponsorship, or approval between Sweetgreen

16 and Chipotle, or as to the origin of Sweetgreen’s “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl.”

17 36. Sweetgreen uses CHIPOTLE® in prominent positions in its

19 advertisements that do not feature other source-identifying names or trademarks.

20 This conduct, coupled with Sweetgreen’s creation and launch of a competitive

22 demonstrated intent to draw an association between its product and Chipotle’s

23 product and brand, can only be explained by a willingness to infringe Chipotle’s

24 intellectual property, confuse and/or deceive consumers, and wrongfully profit

1 Relevant History Between the Parties Preceding this Lawsuit

1 connection, or association of Sweetgreen’s CHIPOTLE chicken items and

6 46. By reason of Sweetgreen’s acts as alleged above, Chipotle has

8 value and goodwill of the CHIPOTLE® Marks, as well as irreparable harm to

9 Chipotle’s business, goodwill, and reputation. Chipotle has no adequate remedy at

12 47. Sweetgreen’s continued use of the CHIPOTLE mark is deliberate,

15 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

25 the two in the minds of consumers.

26 51. Sweetgreen’s use of CHIPOTLE in connection with its prepared

28 CHIPOTLE® Marks, in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act,

5 Chipotle’s business, goodwill, and reputation. Chipotle has no adequate remedy at

8 53. Sweetgreen’s continued use of the CHIPOTLE mark is deliberate,

10 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19 as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Sweetgreen’s CHIPOTLE

20 chicken items and Chipotle, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of

21 Sweetgreen’s CHIPOTLE chicken items by Plaintiff.

22 57. Sweetgreen’s use of CHIPOTLE in connection with its prepared

24 designation of origin in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.

26 58. By reason of Sweetgreen’s acts as alleged above, Chipotle has

28 value and goodwill of the CHIPOTLE® Marks, as well as irreparable harm to

1 Chipotle’s business, goodwill, and reputation. Chipotle has no adequate remedy at

7 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

9 continuing and difficult to ascertain. Unless enjoined, Sweetgreen’s unlawful

16 1. Granting temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief

20 A. using the mark CHIPOTLE, or any other mark confusingly

13 Dated: April 4, 2023

You might also like