Decision Joes Pizza

8/8/2019 Decision Joes Pizza

1/11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - xFAMOUS JOE'S PIZZA, INC.,

Pla in t i f f , 10 Civ. 8861 (JSR)-v - MEMORANDUM ORDER AND

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONGIUSEPPE VITALE, JOE'S PIZZA OFBLEECKER ST. INC., JOE'S PIZZA OF .. ,. '"- BLEECKER ST. 2 LLC, JOE'S PIZZA ONSUNSET, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5, .."..... \ I; 1

... ,tr """'.1:',.- ;"'t: "Defendants.- x

JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J .

On November 23, 2010, p l a i n t i f f Famous J oe ' s Pizza, Inc . f i l edth i s l awsui t aga ins t defendants Giuseppe Vita le , J oe ' s Pizza ofBleecker S t. Inc . , Joe ' s zza of Bleecker S t. 2 LLC, J oe ' s Pizza onSunset , I nc . , and John Does 1-5 , fo r v io la t ions of f ede ra l and s t a t et rademark laws, as wel l as r e l a t ed s t a t e and federa l claims ofcybersqua t t ing and the l i ke . On December 10, 2010, p l a i n t i f f app l i edex par t e fo r a temporary r e s t r a in ing orde r pending de te rmina t ion ofp l a i n t i f f ' s reques t fo r a pre l iminary in junc t ion brought on by orde rto show cause. Based on p l a i n t i f f ' s sworn rep resen ta t ions , the Courtgranted the temporary r es t r a in ing orde r , which, among o the r th ings ,

oined defendants from: using the bus iness name and mark "Joe ' sPizza u ; using the bus iness name and mark "Joe ' s Pizza of BleeckerSt r e e t " ; using any terms s i mi l a r to the term "Joe ' s Pizza" ; using thep l a i n t i f f ' s logo and /o r s i zed l e t t e r ing to i den t i fy defendants 'bus inesses ; using photographs or o the r i nd ic i a the p l a i n t i f f ' s

Case 1:10-cv-08861-JSR Document 11 Filed 12/23/10 Page 1 of 11


2/11

business and s to re f ron t in the market ing o f defendants ' bus inesses ;iden t i fy ing the p l a i n t i f f ' s bus ss as one of the defendants 'bus inesses ; opera t ing or ac t ing as admin is t r a to r s of any J oe ' s zzafan page es tab l i shed as www.facebook.com; and ope ra t ing a websas soc ia ted with the domain names and < joesp izza . i t> .

Temporary Rest ra in ing Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Motionfo r Prel iminary unc t ion Should Not Be Granted, 12/10 /2010 (S.D.N.Y.D . r . 9 ) . In l i g h t of the breadth of t ha t order , however, the Courtconducted a f u l l ev iden t ia ry hear ing on December 20, 2010 and December21, 2010 in order to determine whether, in place of th e temporaryre s t ra in ing order , a iminary in junc t ion should i s sue . 1 Based onthe Cour t ' s eva lua t of the evidence presented a t the hear ing andth e submissions received in connect ion therewith,2 the Court hereby

1 Defendants were given th e opt ion of having the f u l lev iden t ia ry hear ing January , i f pre fe r red , and of havingthe temporary re s t ra in ing orde r s ubs t a n t i a l l y reduced in scope inth e in te r im, but they chose to go forward with th e hear ing onDecember 20-21, 2010. Tr . , 12 /10 /10 .

2 The f indings of f ac t and conc lus ions of law s e t fo r thbelow are binding only fo r the purpose of t h i s pre l iminaryin junct ion and are sub jec t to r ev i s ion a f t e r th e f u l l t r i a l onthe mer i t s . It may be noted t h a t the de te rmina t ion of th e f ac t swas made more d i f f i cu l t by the f ac t t ha t a l l of the wi tnesses a tthe ev iden t ia ry hear ing excep t fo r Pino Pozzuol i , J r . (whosetes t imony was l a rge ly i r re l evan t ) gave tes t imony t ha t was, inmate r i a l r espec t s , unworthy of be l i e f . Indeed, the twocontending pr inc ipa l s Pino Pozzuol i , S r. and Giuseppe Vita le- were so obvious ly af fec ted by t h e i r r espec t ive se l f i n t e r e s t sand mutual animosi t ies t h a t they a t t imes gave test imony t ha tbordered on the prepos te rous . Never the less , a f t e r ca re fu lcons idera t ion of a l l r e levan t f ac to rs , inc luding eva lua t ion of

2

http:///reader/full/www.facebook.comhttp:///reader/full/joespizza.comhttp:///reader/full/joespizza.ithttp:///reader/full/www.facebook.comhttp:///reader/full/joespizza.comhttp:///reader/full/joespizza.it


3/11

vacates the temporary re s t ra in ing orde r and, in i t s place , i s sues apre l iminary in junc t ion t h a t grants some, bu t not a l l , o f thepre l iminary re I sought by the p l a i n t i f f .

P l a i n t i f f i s a corpora t ion organized and s t i ng under thelaws of the Sta te of New York t ha t owns a well-known pizza re s t au ran tknown as Joe ' s zza located a t 7 Carmine St r e e t , New York, NY. From

1974 to 2004, the p l a i n t i f f , through i t s re la ted company,opera ted another pizza re s t au ran t located a t 233 Bleecker St r e e t , NewYork, NY which a l so went by the name J oe ' s Pizza. The p l a i n t i f f ' sp r i n c i p a l and sole shareholder Pino Pozzuol i . Vi ta le , theind iv idual named defendant in t h i s ac t ion , began working as anemployee a t J oe ' s Pizza l a t e 1981, approximately th ree years beforehe marr ied Pozzuol i ' s daughter Theresa. Vita le and Pozzuo l i ' sdaughter divorced in 2004. Also in 2004, Pozzuol i decided to forgorenewal o f the l ease a t the Bleecker St re e t loca t ion and conso l ida t ethe bus iness a t the Carmine St r e e t loca t ion .

In 2002, Vita le opened h is own re s t au ran t - - ca l l ed Joe ' sPizza of Bleecker St r e e t - a t 137 Seventh Avenue in the Park Slopesec t ion Brooklyn. In 2005, Vita le sold h is i n t e r e s t in t h i sre s t au ran t and opened another re s t au ran t ca l l ed J oe ' s zza ofBleecker St re e t located on King's Highway in Brooklyn. In 2007 and2009, r espec t ive ly , V i ta le opened two o th e r re s t au ran t s named J oe ' s

the witnesses ' demeanor, the Cour t wa s able to make withconf idence the f indings and conclus s e t fo r th below.3



4/11

Pizza of Bleecker St re e t -- one loca ted in Santa Monica, Cal i fo rn iaand one loca ted in West Hollywood, Cal i fo rn ia . On October 12, 2007,

t a l e f i l ed an app l i ca t ion with the United Sta tes Patent andTrademark Off to r eg i s t e r a t rademark fo r the name "Joe ' s Pizza ofBleecker St ree t " and, on February 26 , 2008, he f i l ed an app l i ca t ion tor eg i s t e r a t rademark fo r the name "Joe ' s Pizza . u While bothapp l ica t ions were eventua l ly approved, the t rademark examineror ig ina l ly reques ted a d d i t i o n a l informat ion as to the bas i s fo r there fe rence to Bleecker St ree t . In response, Vita le made severa ldubious r ep resen ta t ions such t ha t he had "founded u the re s t au ran t onBleecker St r e e t , whereas i n f ac t Mr. Pozzuol i was the founder.

In add i t ion to al leg ing t ha t defendants are using t rade namest ha t a l leged ly belong to p l a i n t i f f , the p l a i n t i f f a l l eges t ha t thedefendants are also using reviews of the p l a i n t i f f ' s re s t au ran t andphotos taken a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s re s t au ran t the defendants 'market ing mater ia l s . Moreover, the p l a i n t i f f a l l eges t ha t thedefendants are unlawful ly us ing the p l a i n t i f f ' s s ty l i z e d logo on thedefendants ' s igns and in the defendants! market ing mater ia l s .

Afte r ca re fu l cons idera t ion! the Cour t hereby gran t s thefo l lowing pre l iminary in junc t ion . Pending the f i na l hear ing anddete rmina t ion o f t h i s ac t ion! the defendants! t h e i r agents , se rvan t s ,employees! of f i c e r s , and a l l persons in ac t ive concer t andpa r t i c ipa t ion with them are hereby oined! on pa in of contempt ,from:

4



5/11

(a) Adver t i s ing , promoting, o r market ing de fendan t s 'bus sse s as being as soc in any re spec t whatever with th ep l a i n t i f f ' s bus i ness loca ted on Carmine St r e e t i

(b) Using in any way photographs o r o th e r photo images of th ep l a i n t i f f ' s business and s to re on Carmine St re e t o r th ep l a i n t i f f ' s former bus i ness and s t o re f ro n t on Bleecker St re e t i n th eadver t i s ing , promotion, o r market of any of de fendan t s ' bus inesses j

(c) Using in any way ce photos o r o th e r s t akene i t h e r a t p l a i n t i f f ' s bus i ness on Carmine St r e e t o r th ep l a i n t i f f ' s former business on Bleecker S t r e e t in the adver t i s ing ,promotion, or market ing of any of de fendan t s ' bus inesses j and

(d) Using in any way reviews o r endorsements of thep l a i n t i f f ' s bus ss on Carmine St re e t o r p l a i n t i f f ' s former businesson Bleecker St re e t in th e adver t i s ing , promotion, o r market of anyof defendants ' bus inesses .

The pr inc reasons fo r the Cour t ' s ru l ings are as lows.Fi r s t , the Court f t h a t the p l a i n t i f f has demonst ra ted t ha t hasa high l ike l ihood of success on a t l e a s t some of i t s c la ims ofdefendants ' having made mis repre sen ta t ions v io l a t i on of 43(a) ofthe Lanham Act. Sect ion 43(a) (1) (B) of the Lanham Act provides inr e levan t p a r t :

Any person who, on o r in connection with any goods o rse rv ices , o r any con ta ine r fo r goods, uses in commerce anyword, te rm, name, symbol ... o r any se o r misleading

5



6/11

desc r ip t ion of f ac t , or f a l se o r misleading r ep resen ta t ionfac t , which ... in commercial adver t i s ing o r promotion,mis sents the na tu re , c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s , qua l i t i e s , o rgeographic o r i g i n a l of s or he r o r another per son ' s goods,se rv ices , o r commercial a c t i v i t i e s , s h a l l be l i ab l e in a c i v i lac t ion by any person who l ieves t ha t he or she i s l i ke ly tobe damaged by such ac t .

See 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) (1) (B). A p l a i n t i f f can r ecove r under t h i ssec t ion of the Lanham Act by demonstra t ing t ha t the defendants 'adver t i sements are l i t e r a l l y f a l se o r t ha t th e adver t i sements are

F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir . 2007) When an adver t i sement i s shown to bel i t e r a l l y or f ac ia l ly f a l se , consumer decept ion (and the re fo rei r repa rab le harm) i s presumed and th e cour t may gran t re I f withou tre fe rence to the adver t isement ' s a c tu a l impact on the pub l ic .

impl ic i t ly f a l se .

189 F.3d 218, 229 (2d Cir . 1999) Into recover fo r impl ic i t ly fa lse adver t i sements , the p l a i n t i f f

needs to presen t ic evidence of consumer decept ion o rconfusion. Time Warner Cable, 497 F.3d a t 153. Under e i t h e r theory ,the p l a i n t i f f must a l so show t ha t th e sen ta t ion was mate a l .

Id . a t 15 3 n .3 .In t h i s case , the p l a i n t i f f has demonstrated t ha t it has a

high 1 l ihood of success on a t l e a s t some o f i t s Lanham Act c la imsbecause the defendants ' adver t i s ing and market ing mater ia l s conta in

6



7/11

I

r ep resen ta t ions t ha t are 1 ly fa l se . Spec i f ica l ly , therepresenta t ion on the de s ' pizza box, and var ious s imi la rr ep resen ta t ions elsewhere in the defendants ' market ing mate r i a l s , to

the e f f e c t tha t the Carmine St ree t loca t ion i s one of the defendantsions i s fa lse on i t s face. Indeed 1 a t the evident

Mr. Vita le e f f e c t ive ly acknowledged t ha t t h i s rep resen ta t ion wa s fa lseand agreed to cease making re s to the Carmine St r e e t ion.

Tr . , 12/20/10, 12/21/10. Moreover 1 the defendants ' use ofof the p l a i n t i f f ' s re s t au ran t and of photos taken a t the p la in t i f f1 scur ren t re s t au ran t on Carmine St r e e t and former re s t au ran t on BleeckerSt r e e t defendants market ing mater ia l s pla in ly "mis represen ts thena ture , charac te r i s t i cs 1 [and] qua l i t s" of the defendants 're s t au ran t s . Indeed, there i s a s t rong argument t ha t theser ep resen ta t ions can also be considered I i fa l se , but evenassuming are only imp l i c i t l y fa l se , the p l a i n t i f f has submit tede x t r in s i c evidence of ac tua l confusion. Aff . of Pino Pozzuol i ,J r . a t 57-58, Ex. P (c i t ing eight reviews ing the defendants 're s t au ran t s with the p la in t i f f ' s re s tauran t ) . ly , the Courtf inds t ha t these senta t ions are mater ia l s ince are c lea r lydesigned to , and are l ike ly to , have a mater ia l e f f ec t on consumers '

purchasing dec is See National Baske tba l l Ass 'n v. Motorola!Inc . , 105 F.3d 841, 855 (2d Cir . 1997). Thus, the Court concludest ha t the p l a i n t i f f i s l ike ly t o p reva i l on i t s f raudulentrepresenta t ion claim under the Lanham Act .

7



8/11

Second, the Court f inds t ha t the p l a i n t i f f has demonstratedt ha t it wil l fe r i r repa rab le harm without an in junct ion . Thedefendants ' continued use of the p l a i n t i f f ' s address and photographstaken a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s loca t ion in defendants ' market ing mater ia l swil l undoubtedly r e s u l t in ongoing confusion of the publ ic aboutwhether the defendants ' re s t au ran t s are in fac t associa ted with thep la in t i f f ' s re s t au ran t on Carmine St ree t . In add i t ion , these ac t ionsare d i lu t ing p la in t i f f ' s goodwill and reputa t ion in a way t ha tcannot be eas i ly quant i f ied . Because " [ i ] t i s v i r t ua l ly impossible toprove tha t so much of one ' s wil l be l o s t o r t ha t one ' s goodwil lwil l be damaged as a d i rec t r e su l t of a compet i to r ' s adver t i sement ,"the pIa i f f "need no t ... poin t to an actua l loss or ion ofsa les" to demonstrate i r repa rab le harm. 497 F.3da t 161. Here, the Court f inds t ha t defendants ' use of photographsand reviews of the p l a i n t i f f ' s bus iness in defendants ' marketingmater ia l s i s in tended to deceive the publ , and, indeed, var iousreviews in evidence t ha t equate the defendants ' re s tauran ts with thep la in t i f f ' s re s t au ran t sugges t t ha t the defendants ' a c t arecausing actua l confusion.

Furthermore, while enjo in ing the defendants from us thename "Joe ' s Pizza ll or " Joe ' s Pizza of Bleecker St ree t " could be verydisrupt ive to defendants ' bus inesses (see i n f r a ) , merely r equ i r ingthem to remove photo images o f the p l a i n t i f f ' s bus iness and el iminatereferences to the p l a i n t i f f ' s business on Carmine St r e e t from t h e i r

8



9/11

promotional mater ia l s un t i l t h i s mat te r i s resolved i s not undulyburdensome.

However, while some in junc t r e l i e f i s appropr ia te , theCourt f inds t h a t the p l a i n t i f f not en t i t l ed to a l l of the r e l i e f ithas reques ted . For example, the Court f inds t ha t the p l a i n t i f f hasnot y e t shown t h a t it i s l i ke ly to p re v a i l on many of i t s t rademarkinf r ingement c la ims to the r e qu i s i t e degree neces to suppor tpre l iminary in junc t ive r e l f of the onerous kind p l a i n t i f f reques t sin t h i s regard . To preva i l i n a t rademark in f r ingement ac t ion underthe Lanham Act, a p l a i n t i f f must prove both t ha t s mark i spro tec tab le and t ha t there i s a l ike l ihood of confusion, o r t ha t"numerous ordinary prudent purchasers are l ike ly to be misled o rconfused as to the source of the produc t in ques t ion because of theent rance the marketplace of defendant ' s mark.H Gruner + JahrUSA Publ 'g v. Meredi th Corp. , 991 F.2d 1072, 1076-77 (2d Cir . 1993) .Notwiths tanding the po te n t i a l confusion, the Court f inds t ha t , a tl e a s t a t t h i s s tage , the i n t i f f has not es t ab l i shed t ha t the verygener ic name " Joe ' s Pizza" i s pro tec tab le . Whether "Joe ' s Pizza ofBleecker St ree t " i s pro tec tab le i s ce r ta in ly a c l o se r ques t ion , bu tthe Cour t still f inds t ha t the p l a i n t i f f has no t y e t demonstrated al ike l ihood of success on the meri t s su f f i c i en t to suppor t in junc t iver e l i e f . While Vita le c e r t a in ly made misleading s ta tements to the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office in connect ion with defendants ' t rademarkapp l ica t ions - inc luding the s ta tement t h a t he "founded" the Joe ' s

9



10/11

Pizza loca ted on Bleecker St re e t it i s no t as though Vita le had noconnect ion to the Bleecker St r e e t loca t ion and was thus en t i r e l yun jus t i f i e d in re fe r r ing to it i n h i s t rademark app l ica t ion . V i ta le

d id work alongs Pino Pozzuol i fo r 23 years , and it i s l i ke ly tha tVita le i s a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y respons ib le fo r the success of thep l a i n t i f f ' s re s t au ran t . Am. Decl . o f Giuseppe Vita le a t 4.Also, desp i te the f ac t t h a t the p l a i n t i f f has been in bus iness fo r 35years , the p l a i n t i f f never appl ied for the t rademarks "Joe ' s Pizza ff o r" Joe ' s Pizza on Bleecker St ree t . "

Moreover, p l a i n t i f f ' s cla im t ha t the defendants have usurpedthe d i s t i nc t ive logo i s ques t ionable in l i g h t of the numerousphotographs presented a t the ev iden t ia ry hear ing , which demonstratet ha t the p l a i n t i f f has not had a c o n s i s t e n t logo dur ing i t s 35 yearsin bus iness or even dur ing the p a s t 5 years . And while thep l a i n t i f f ' s p r i n c i p a l vehemently mainta ins t h a t i t s re s t au ran t goes bythe name " Joe ' s Pizza ," var ious s igns (and the p l a i n t i f f ' s corpora tename) suggest t ha t the re s t au ran t ch ie f ly goes by the name "FamousJ oe ' s zza. H While the p l a i n t i f f may u l t ima te ly succeed on i t st rademark infr ingement c la ims, the Court f inds t ha t , a t t h i s s tage ,the p l a i n t i f f has no t su f f i c i en t l y demonstrated a 1 l ihood of

success on the meri t s su f f i c i en t l y to warrant pre l iminary unc tr e l i e f , and thus the Court does not oin the fendants from usingthe name " Joe ' s Pizza" or " Joe ' s Pizza of Bleecker Streetff and does

10



11/11

not enjo in the defendants from using the logo and/or s ty l i z edl e t t e r ing t ha t a l leged ly belong to p l a i n t i f f .

The Court has cons idered the pa r t i e s ' o the r arguments and

reques ts bu t f inds they do not warrant f u r t h e r discuss ion here .Accordingly, the Court gran t s the p l a i n t i f f ' s reques t fo r a

pre l iminary in junc t ion only in the r espec t s s e t for th above. To theextent here granted , however, the l iminary in junct ion sha l l takee f f e c t immediately.

SO ORDERED. S. RAKOFF, J . S .D . J .Dated: New York, New York

December 23, 2010

11


Decision Joes Pizza

Documents

Transcript of Decision Joes Pizza