On Friday, Rosina Food Products, Inc. and F&R IP Inc. filed a complaint in the District of Connecticut against Rosina’s Mill Street LLC alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition for using its Rosina mark in a similar range of food products.
According to the complaint, Rosina Food Products, Inc. is a New York corporation that produces food products including Italian meatballs, pasta, eggplant, appetizers, pizza toppings, sausage and entrees. Further, the complaint states that F&R IP is a Delaware corporation and the owner of Rosina Food Products’ intellectual property including the federally registered Rosina mark.
The complaint states that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued the federal registration of the Rosina Mark to F&R on February 27, 1970. Additionally, the complaint states that on June 11, 2013, F&R received federal registration by the USPTO for a stylized version of the Rosina trademark. The federal registration for the marks cover a range of goods including food products like Italian foods. The plaintiffs state that the marks have been continuously used in commerce, and in addition to the federally registered marks, F&R is also the owner of nationwide common law trademark rights for the Rosina marks.
The plaintiffs purport that they have invested significant time and resources into protecting the Rosina marks and state that the marks have gained nationwide recognition and a high degree of awareness in the Connecticut market.
The complaint alleges that the defendant has been using infringing marks, Rosina’s and Rosina’s Restaurant and Bar, in connection with the advertising, marketing and sale of Italian food products at its Connecticut restaurant and its website, www.rosinasrestaurant.com. The plaintiffs argue that the similarity of the defendant’s marks and products sold in connection with the marks is likely to cause consumer confusion and thus infringe on F&R’s Rosina marks.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs bring the present case alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition and cybersquatting under the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition and unfair trade practices under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, transfer of ownership and control of the defendant’s website, attorney’s fees and costs.
The plaintiffs are represented by Barclay Damon LLP.
