Você está na página 1de 18

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 18

Murray Skala (MS-9354)


Larry Miller (LM-8323)
Jonathan Honig (JH-7577)
Feder Kaszovitz LLP
845 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 888-8200
Fax: (212) 888-7776
Attorneys for Plaintiff DENTSPLY International Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------- x
:
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL INC.
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
DENTAL BRANDS FOR LESS LLC
:
DBA DENTAL WHOLESALE DIRECT
:
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------- x

2015 Civ. 8775 (LGS) (GWG)


ECF CASE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT


Plaintiff DENTSPLY International Inc. ("Plaintiff") by its attorneys Feder Kaszovitz
LLP, alleges the following as and for its complaint against Dental Brands For Less LLC dba
Dental Wholesale Direct ("Defendant").
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for trademark infringement and unfair competition under 32 (1) of
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1); unfair competition and false designation of origin under
43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c); dilution under the laws of New York, N.Y.

Plaintiff FACSAC3.23.2016

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 18

GEN. BUS. Law 360-1; unfair and deceptive trade practices under the laws of several states,
including New York, N.Y. GEN. BUS. Law 349; tortious interference with contract, tortious
interference with business relations and unfair competition under the common law of the State of
New York. Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief, an accounting, statutory damages,
compensatory damages, Defendant's profits, recovery of its costs and attorneys' fees, and other
relief authorized by the Lanham Act, and applicable state statutory and common law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This action arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. This Court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(b), and 1367 and under principles of pendent
jurisdiction. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 as there is diversity
between the parties and the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the
sum of seventy-five thousand dollars.
3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (a), (b), and (c).
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant pursuant to New York Civil
Practice Law and Rules 301 and 302.
THE PARTIES
5. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware having
offices at 221 West Philadelphia Street, York, Pennsylvania 17405; it is the owner of numerous
U.S. trademark registrations related to dental products.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dental Brands For Less, LLC is a Florida
limited liability company that does business as Dental Wholesale Direct and with offices at 9621
NW 28th Street, Cooper City, FL 33024.

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 3 of 18

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
7. Plaintiff produces, markets, and sells a highly successful line of dental materials and
related products (collectively the "DENTSPLY Products") to retailers and distributors in the
United States under various trademarks, including its famous DENTSPLY mark, which has
been registered as a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO")
since 1904.
8. All of Plaintiff's dental products bear the DENTSPLY mark.
9. Plaintiff owns, inter alia, the following US trademark registrations: AQUASIL,
AUTOMATRIX, CALIBRA, CAULK, CAULK ZOE B & T, COMPULES,
DENTSPLY, DISPERSALLOY, DYCAL, ENHANCE, ESTHET-X, FYNAL,
INTEGRITY, IRM, JELTRATE, LYNAL, POLYJEL, PRIME & BOND,
PRISMA, REPROSIL, SANI-TIP, SPECTRUM, SUREFIL, TPH and TPH
SPECTRA ("the DENTSPLY Marks"). The DENTSPLY Marks are all valid and in full
force and effect. True and correct copies of DENTSPLY Marks are attached hereto as Exhibit
1.
10. Plaintiff exercises strict quality control over the production and storage of its
DENTSPLY Products, their completed packaging, and their distribution by its authorized
distributors ("Distributors") in the United States and abroad.
11. Plaintiff has over 100 wholly owned subsidiaries outside the United States ("the
Subsidiary").
12. Each Subsidiary is authorized to enter into distribution agreements with local
distributors subject to restrictions with respect to customers, territory and channels of distribution

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 4 of 18

and sale, including a prohibition against such distributor selling DENTSPLY Products to any
person if it knows, or has reason to know, that such person intends to sell, offer to sell, market,
promote, distribute, use, transfer or otherwise dispose of the DENTSPLY Products outside of
such distributor's particular territory.
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant is in the business of purchasing, and reselling
dental products, including Plaintiff's, in territories outside the territories in which the distributors,
from whom it receives such goods, are authorized to sell and market them ("gray market"
products).
14. Defendant imports, sells, markets and distributes "gray market" DENTSPLY
Products which are not authorized by Plaintiff for sale in the United States and are materially
different from Plaintiff's authorized goods, including differences in warranty protection, quality
control in storage and shipping, in reliability stemming therefrom, differences in sale of product
after the expiration date thereof, sale of products sold abroad but no longer sold domestically and
other differences stemming from Defendant's handling of such infringing products ("Infringing
Products").
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant's unlawful actions commenced many years
after Plaintiff began using the DENTSPLY mark, many years after the DENTSPLY mark
had achieved worldwide fame, and many years after the DENTSPLY mark was registered in
the PTO.
16. Purchasers and prospective purchasers viewing Defendant's unlicensed and
unauthorized gray goods are likely to mistakenly assume that they are sponsored, licensed,
approved, or authorized by Plaintiff for sale in the United States.

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 5 of 18

17. Defendant has sold SPECTRUM TPH3 and TPH3 composite restorative products,
whose sale in the United States was discontinued by Plaintiff in 2013, which are physically and
materially different in formulation and packaging from the composite restorative products that
Plaintiff offers for sale in the United States.

18. Since 2013, Plaintiff sells its universal composite restorative under the registered
mark TPH SPECTRA (above) and this restorative is physically and materially different from
the TPH3 and SPECTRUM TPH3 products that Defendant sells.

19. By causing such a likelihood of confusion, mistake, deception, and potential public
health risk, Defendant has infringed and is infringing Plaintiff's trademarks and inflicting
irreparable harm to Plaintiff's goodwill.
20. Furthermore, Defendant's sale of Infringing Products is likely to deceive, confuse,
and mislead purchasers and prospective purchasers into believing that these unlicensed and
unauthorized products were authorized for sale and by Plaintiff. The likelihood of confusion,
mistake, and deception caused by Defendant's unlicensed and unauthorized products has caused
and is causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff.

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 6 of 18

21. .Upon information and belief, Defendant has used and knowingly and willfully
continues to use Plaintiff's marks and sells the gray goods with the deliberate intent to exploit the
fame and goodwill that Plaintiff has established in its DENTSPLY brand and with the deliberate
intent to create a false impression as to the source and sponsorship of Defendant's products and
to dilute the distinctiveness of Plaintiff's marks. If Defendant's conduct is not enjoined, it will
continue to greatly injure the value of Plaintiff's marks and Plaintiff's ability to distinguish its
goods.
22. Defendant is aware that each Distributor from whom it purchases DENTSPLY
Products is contractually obligated only to sell DENTSPLY Products inside its defined territory
and not outside the defined territory or into the territory knowing, or reasonably aware, that the
product will be contemporaneously moved outside the defined territory for sale outside the
territory.
23. Upon information and belief, Defendant maliciously induces Distributors to sell to it
DENTSPLY Products so that Defendant can sell the DENTSPLY Products in the United States
in full knowledge that its purchases are illegal and cause such Distributors to violate the express
terms of their agreements with the Subsidiary or Plaintiff.
24. Defendant is aware that each Distributor from whom it purchases DENTSPLY
Products is violating a material term of its contract with its local Subsidiary by virtue of such
sale.
25. Upon ascertaining the identity of the Distributors who act as sources of Defendant's
supply of the aforementioned goods and the contracts breached, Plaintiff will obtain an
assignment of the claims of its Subsidiaries relating to those breached contracts and seek leave to
amend the complaint to encompass those specific claims.

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 7 of 18

26. Plaintiff does not warrant any DENTSPLY Products sold outside of a Distributor's
authorized territory.
27. Upon information and belief, Defendant is aware that there is no warranty by Plaintiff
of the Dentsply gray goods that it sells.

28. Defendant has used Plaintiff's distinctive stylized logo,

(the

"DENTSPLY Logo") on its website, www.dentalwholesaledirect.com ("the Website") and in its


catalogs and flyers to advertise the Infringing Products, without permission or license from
Plaintiff.
29. Defendant has advertised on the Website expired DENTSPLY Product using the
DENTSPLY Logo.
30. Upon information and belief, Defendant's conduct is intentionally fraudulent,
malicious, willful, and wanton.
31. On or about September 18, 2015, Plaintiff notified Defendant of its rights in the
DENTSPLY Marks and Defendant's violation of these rights by the importation and offer for
sale of Infringing Products, without permission or license from Plaintiff. By this letter, Plaintiff
also demanded cessation of sale, offers for sale, importation and distribution of the Infringing
Products and all similar products that infringe the DENTSPLY Marks. A true and correct copy
of Plaintiff's letter of September 18, 2015, is attached as Exhibit 2.
32. To date, Defendant has neither provided the demanded information nor ceased selling
Infringing Products. Upon information and belief, Defendant's commercial activities relating to
the making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States of the
Infringing Products have continued and are continuing with knowledge of Plaintiff's rights, and

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 8 of 18

with knowledge that Defendant's actions are intentional, deliberate and willful infringement of
the DENTSPLY Marks. These commercial activities are, at a minimum, in reckless disregard
of Plaintiff's rights under the DENTSPLY Marks.
COUNT I
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT (15 U.S.C. 1114)
33. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1
through 32 above, as if each were fully set forth herein.
34. Defendant's unauthorized sale in the United States of the Infringing Products is likely
to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source or sponsorship of such products by
Plaintiff. As a result of Defendant's unauthorized use of Plaintiff's Marks, the public is likely to
be confused as to whether the Defendant's goods are authentic and/or have been approved,
warrantied or sponsored by Plaintiff.
35. Defendant's unauthorized sale in the United States of Infringing Products constitutes a
false designation of origin and a false description or representation that Defendant's sale of such
products is authorized by Plaintiff.
36. Upon information and belief, Defendant's infringement of Plaintiff's registered mark
is willful, intended to reap the benefit of the goodwill of Plaintiff, and violates Section 32 (1) of
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1).
37. The aforesaid conduct of Defendant is causing immediate and irreparable injury to
Plaintiff and to its goodwill and reputation, and will continue both to damage Plaintiff and to
deceive the public unless enjoined by this Court.
38. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 9 of 18

COUNT II
FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION, FALSE DESCRIPTION AND FALSE
DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
39. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1
through 38 above, as if each were fully set forth herein.
40. Defendant's unauthorized sale of the Infringing Products constitutes a false
designation of origin and a false description or representation that Defendant's sale of such
products is authorized, approved or sponsored by Plaintiff, and is thereby likely to confuse
customers.
41. Defendant's advertising the Infringing Products for sale on the Website using the
DENTSPLY Logo constitutes a false designation of origin and a false description or
representation that Defendant's sale of such products is authorized, approved or sponsored by
Plaintiff, thereby deceiving a substantial segment of visitors to the Website.
42. Defendant's advertising of expiring and expired Infringing Products for sale using the
DENTSPLY Logo further constitutes false advertising in that it falsely suggests that Plaintiff
authorizes sale of products beyond their expiration date.
43. The foregoing constitutes false advertising, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
44. Upon information and belief, Defendant is using the DENTSPLY mark with full
knowledge that it is associated exclusively with Plaintiff.
45. Upon information and belief, Defendant's acts of unfair competition are willful and
deliberate and with an intent to reap the benefit of the goodwill and reputation associated with
Plaintiff.
46. Defendant's sale and distribution of the gray goods are in violation of Section

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 10 of 18

43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A).


47. The aforesaid conduct of Defendant is causing immediate and irreparable injury to
Plaintiff and to its goodwill and reputation, and will continue both to damage Plaintiff and to
deceive the public unless enjoined by this Court.
48. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT III
TRADEMARK DILUTION (15 U.S.C. 1125(c))
49. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1
through 48 above as if each were fully set forth herein.
50. The DENTSPLY mark is famous and well known throughout the United States,
having been used exclusively and extensively for many years. By reason of extensive
advertising and use, Plaintiff's mark has become highly distinctive of Plaintiff's products and is
uniquely associated with Plaintiff.
51. Defendant's commercial use of Plaintiff's mark on the Infringing Products has diluted
and continues to dilute the distinctive quality of Plaintiff's famous mark by lessening its capacity
to identify and distinguish Plaintiff exclusively as the source of goods bearing or provided under
the mark.
52. Defendant's unlawful use of the DENTSPLY mark is intended to and has the effect
of trading on Plaintiff's reputation and causing dilution of Plaintiff's famous mark.
53. Upon information and belief, Defendant does not own any federal or state
registrations or trademark applications for any mark that includes, in whole or in part,
DENTSPLY, and cannot assert any rights in the word DENTSPLY that are prior to Plaintiff's

10

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 11 of 18

first use of the mark.


54. Defendant's conduct is in violation of Section 43 (c) of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. 1125(c).
55. The aforesaid conduct of Defendant is causing immediate and irreparable injury to
Plaintiff and its goodwill and reputation, and will continue to damage Plaintiff unless enjoined
by this Court.
56. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT IV
STATE TRADEMARK DILUTION AND INJURY TO BUSINESS REPUTATION
57. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1
through 56 above as if each were fully set forth herein.
58. Plaintiff has extensively and continuously promoted and used the DENTSPLY
mark in the United States and the mark has thereby become a distinctive, famous, and wellknown symbol of Plaintiff's dental products.
59. Upon information and belief, Defendant's commercial use of the DENTSPLY mark
on the Infringing Products has diluted and continues to dilute the distinctive quality of Plaintiff's
mark by lessening its capacity to identify and distinguish Plaintiff as the exclusive source of the
goods bearing or provided under the mark, and thereby damaging the good will associated with
Plaintiff's products.
60. Upon information and belief, Defendant's actions demonstrate an intentional, willful,
and malicious intent to trade on the goodwill associated with the DENTSPLY mark or to cause
dilution of the DENTSPLY mark, to the great and irreparable injury of Plaintiff.

11

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 12 of 18

61. Defendant is causing and will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiff's
goodwill and business reputation, and dilution of the distinctiveness and value of the famous and
distinctive DENTSPLY mark in violation of the New York anti-dilution act, N.Y. GEN. BUS.
Law 360-1.
62. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT V
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTS
63. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1
through 62 above as if each were fully set forth herein.
64. Plaintiff markets its products through Distributors who are licensed to sell
DENTSPLY Products only in specified territories.
65. Plaintiff's Distributors enter into contracts with Plaintiff or its local Subsidiaries
which prohibit them from directly or indirectly selling DENTSPLY Products outside that
Distributor's authorized territory or altering the labeling or packaging of such products without
Plaintiff's or the Subsidiary's written consent (the "Restrictions").
66. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew about the Restrictions when it
purchased DENTSPLY Products from Distributors.
67. Upon information and belief, Defendant wrongfully and illegally caused Distributors
to breach their contracts by inducing Distributors to sell to Defendant DENTSPLY Products in
violation of the Restrictions.
68. Defendant's interference with the contracts of Distributors has
damaged Plaintiff by reducing Plaintiff's sales of its products and harming its goodwill.

12

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 13 of 18

69. The aforesaid conduct of Defendant is causing immediate and irreparable injury to
Plaintiff and to its goodwill and reputation, and will continue both to damage Plaintiff and to
deceive the public unless enjoined by this Court.
70. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT VI
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS
71. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1
through 70 above as if each were fully set forth herein.
72. Defendants actions as set forth above have interfered wrongfully with Plaintiff's
business relations with its customers.
73. The aforesaid intentional and wrongful conduct of Defendant is causing immediate
and irreparable injury to Plaintiff and to its goodwill and reputation, and will continue both to
damage Plaintiff and to deceive the public unless enjoined by this Court.
74. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT VII
UNFAIR COMPETITION
75. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1
through 74 above as if each were fully set forth herein.
76. Upon information and belief, Defendant is using the DENTSPLY mark with full
knowledge that it is associated exclusively with Plaintiff and exclusively designates DENTSPLY
Products.
77. Upon information and belief, Defendant's inducement of Distributors to violate the
Restrictions has damaged Plaintiff's goodwill and relations with its customers.

13

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 14 of 18

78. Defendant's acts as set forth above constitute unfair competition under the common
law of the State of New York.
79. Upon information and belief, Defendant's acts of unfair competition are willful and
deliberate and with an intent to reap the benefit of the goodwill and reputation associated with
the DENTSPLY mark.
80. The aforesaid conduct of Defendant is causing immediate and irreparable injury to
Plaintiff and to its goodwill and reputation, and will continue both to damage Plaintiff and to
deceive the public unless enjoined by this Court.
81. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT VIII
UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
82. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1
through 81 above as if each were fully set forth herein.
83. By reason of the acts set forth above, Defendant has been and is engaged in deceptive
acts or practices in the conduct of business, trade or commerce in violation of New York statute
N.Y. GEN. BUS. Law 349.
84. The public is likely to be damaged as a result of Defendant's deceptive trade practices
or acts.
85. The aforesaid conduct of Defendant is causing immediate and irreparable injury to
Plaintiff and to its goodwill and reputation, and will continue both to damage Plaintiff and to
deceive the public unless enjoined by this Court.
86. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

14

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 15 of 18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:


1.

Enjoining Defendant and any employees, agents, servants, officers, representatives,


directors, attorneys, successors, affiliates, assigns, and entities owned or controlled by
Defendant and all those in active concert and participation with Defendant and each of
them who receives notice directly or otherwise of such injunction from:

a.

imitating, copying, or making unauthorized use of the DENTSPLY mark, DENTSPLY


Logo and the DENTSPLY Marks;

b.

unless authorized in writing by Plaintiff, importing, exporting, manufacturing, producing,


distributing, circulating, selling, offering for sale, advertising, promoting, or displaying
any product bearing any of the DENTSPLY Marks or using the DENTSPLY Logo;

c.

using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the


DENTSPLY Marks in connection with the importation, promotion, advertisement,
display, sale, offering for sale, manufacture, production, circulation, or distribution of any
product;

d.

using any false designation of origin or false description, or performing any act which is
likely to lead members of the trade or the public to believe that any infringing product
manufactured, distributed, or sold by Defendant is in any manner associated or connected
with Plaintiff, or is sold, manufactured, licensed, sponsored, approved, or authorized by
Plaintiff;

e.

engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with Plaintiff, or


constituting infringement of the DENTSPLY Marks;

f.

taking any action, including through the use of the DENTSPLY Marks or any
simulation, reproduction, copy, or colorable imitation thereof, that dilutes the unique

15

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 16 of 18

association between the DENTSPLY Marks and Plaintiff, or that tarnishes the
reputation or image of Plaintiff;
g.

interfering, directly or indirectly. with Plaintiff's contracts with its Distributors;

h.

transferring, consigning, selling, shipping, or otherwise moving any goods, packaging, or


other materials in Defendant's possession, custody, or control bearing any simulation,
reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the DENTSPLY Marks;

i.

disposing of, destroying, altering, moving, removing, concealing, tampering with or in


any manner secreting any business records (including computer records) of any kind,
including invoices, correspondence, books of account, receipts, or other documentation
relating to or referring in any manner to the manufacture, advertising, receipt, acquisition,
importation, purchase, sale, offer for sale, or distribution of any merchandise bearing any
simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the DENTSPLY
Marks;

j.

instructing, assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or entity in engaging in or


performing any of the activities referred to in subparagraphs (a) through (j) above.

2.

Directing that Defendant make available to Plaintiff for review, inspection, and copying
all books, records (including but not limited to all hard drives on computers used for
business purposes, including but not limited to servers, as well as all computer disks and
back-up media) and all other documents concerning all transactions relating to the
purchase, sale, or unauthorized use of products or packaging incorporating the
DENTSPLY Marks and provide Plaintiff the names, addresses, and all other contact
information in its possession for the source(s) of such products and packaging, including
all manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers.

16

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 17 of 18

3.

Directing that Defendant recall from distributors, retailers, and all other recipients any
and all products and packaging sold or distributed by Defendant under or in connection
with the DENTSPLY Marks and, upon recall, to deliver such goods to Plaintiff.

4.

Directing that Defendant cancel any advertising, regardless of the medium, using the
DENTSPLY Marks.

5.

Directing that Defendant deliver to Plaintiff's counsel for destruction at Defendant's costs
all signs, promotional materials, advertising material, catalogs, and any other item that
bears, contains, or incorporates the DENTSPLY Marks.

6.

Requiring Defendant to account for and pay over to Plaintiff three times the profits
realized by Defendant from its infringement of Plaintiff's marks and its unfair
competition with Plaintiff.

7.

Awarding Plaintiff its actual damages, trebled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), arising
out of Defendant's acts of willful unfair competition and trademark dilution.

8.

Awarding plaintiff damages in an amount to be determined at trial for Defendant's


tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relations, and
common law unfair competition.

9.

Awarding to Plaintiff interest, including pre-judgment interest, on the foregoing sums.

10.

Awarding Plaintiff its costs in this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).

11.

Awarding Plaintiff exemplary and punitive damages to deter any future willful
infringement as the Court finds appropriate.

12.

Directing such other action as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent the trade and

17

Case 1:15-cv-08775-LGS Document 32 Filed 03/23/16 Page 18 of 18

public from deriving the erroneous impression that any goods or services offered,
advertised, or promoted by or on behalf of Defendant are authorized by Plaintiff.
13.

Directing that Defendant file with the Court and serve upon Plaintiff's counsel within
thirty (30) days after entry of judgment a report in writing under oath setting forth in
detail the manner and form in which Defendant has complied with the above.

14.

Awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.


Dated: New York, NY
March 23, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
FEDER KASZOVITZ LLP

By:

/s
Larry Miller
/
Murray L. Skala (MS-9354)
Larry B. Miller (LM-8323)
Jonathan Honig (JH-7577)
845 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 888-8200
Fax: (212) 888-7776
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DENTSPLY International Inc.

18

Você também pode gostar