Gordon v. Bed Bath & Beyond - Honey Badger Don't Care complaint.pdf

Daniel L. Reback (SBN 239884)Email: dreback(Thkranesmith.corn

Jeremy Smith LSBN 242430)Email: j srnitlikranesmith.comBenjamin J. Smith (SBN 266712)EmaiP bsmithakranesmith.com

KRANE & SMITH, APC16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 600Encino, CA 91436Tel: (818) 382-4000Fax: (818) 382-4001Attorneys for Plaintiff,CHRISTOPHER GORDON

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER GORDON, anindividual,

BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., aNew York corporation; TERVISTUMBLER COMPANY, INC., aFlorida corporation; WEAVETECINC. dba SIMPLY HOME, a SouthCarolina corporation; and DOES Ito 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO.

COMPLAINT FOR:

1. TRADEMARKINFRINGEMENT [15 U.S.C.41ll4et seq.

2. TRADEMA KINFRINGEMENT

3. FEDERAL UNFAICOMPETITLON AND FALSEDESIGNATION OF ORIGIN [15U.S.C. 1 125(a)1; and

4. UNFAIR COMPETITION[California law]

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I

7

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Is

19

20

21

77

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaint i fi

vs.

California law];

1

COMPLMNT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2:15-cv-8109

Case 2:15-cv-08109 Document 1 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:1

I Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER GORDON (Plaintiff) alleges as follows:2 ENTRODUCTEON

3 Plaintiff is a comedic narrator who, on Januan 18, 2011, published a video:4 on YouTube that consisted of his original narration humorously describing the

5 traits of a honey badger. The video went viral and has generated more than 756 million views on YouTube. In the video, Plaintiffs original expressions and jokes7 include the phrase Honey Badger Dont Care. Plaintiffs original expressions

S have gained a tremendous amount of notoriety, and his expressions have been

9 referred to in commercials, television shows, magazines, and throughout the

10 internet, and by numerous celebrities. Plaintiff copyrighted his narration and

ii trademarked HONEY BADGER DONT CARE under four separate registration

12 numbers for various classes of goods, including, inter a/ia, mugs, t-shirts, audio

13 books, computer application software and plush toys. Plaintiff has also produced,

14 advertised, and sold merchandise bearing his trademark of Honey Badger Dont

15 Care since soon after the video was published, and he continues to sell and

16 license merchandise bearing his trademark today.

17 Defendants Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., Tervis Tumbler Company, Inc., and

is Weavetec, Inc. collaborated to manufacture, advertise, sell and distribute

19 numerous products that bore Plaintiffs trademark of Honey Badger Dont Care,

20 all of which were sold at Bed Bath & Beyond. Defendants committed such

21 infringing activities in order to capitalize off Plaintiffs valuable trademark and to

22 monetize off his popular video. Defendants unauthorized sales of merchandise

23 bearing Plaintiffs trademark coupled with their intentional deceptive business24 practices to create customer confrision constitute, ijiter a/ia, willful trademark25 infringement and unfair competition.

26

27

28 2

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 1. This is a civil action arising under the Trademark Laws of the United

3 States, 15 U.S.C. 1051, etseq. This Court has subject matter jurisdictionpursuantto28U.S.C. 1331 and 1338.

5 2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in this6 Complaint that arise under California law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because7 the state law claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the

8 same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.

9 3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and10 1400(a). At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff has been a resident of Los Angeles,11 California. The infringing products which are the subject of this litigation have12 been distributed and offered for distribution in the Central District of California,

13 and the Defendants transact business in the Central District of California.

14 Defendants have extensive contacts with, and conduct business within, this

15 District; have placed products into the stream of commerce in this District; and

16 have caused toitious injury to Plaintiff in this District.17 PARTIES

18 4. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Los Angeles, California.

19 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant

20 Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (BB&B) is a New York corporation that is subject to21 the jurisdiction of this Court. BB&B is a chain of merchandise retail stores that22 sells goods primarily for the bedroom and bathroom, as well as kitchen and dining

23 room.


25 Tervis Tumbler Company, Inc. (Tervis) is a Florida corporation that is subject to26 the jurisdiction of this Court. Tervis produces and sells tumblers - - products27

28 3



I such as cups and mugs that use double-wall technology to harness the natural

2 insulating properties of air.


4 Weavetec, Inc. (Weaetec) is a South Carolina corporation that is sibject to the5 jurisdiction of this Court. Weavetec, through its division Simply Home, produces6 and sells pillows, throws and afghans, among other goods.

7 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that

8 Defendants BB&B. Tervis and Weavetec (collectively, Defendants) authorized,9 directed, participated in, contributed to, ratified, and/or accepted the benefits of

10 the wrongful acts as alleged herein.

ii 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,

12 associate or otherwise of defendants DOES I through 10, inclusive, are unknown

13 to Plaintiff who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff

14 is infonTled and believes and based thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously

15 named defendants is responsible in some manner for the events, acts, occurrences

16 and liabilities alleged and referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this

17 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these DOE defendants when18 the same are ascertained.

19 SUBSTANTEVE ALLEGATLONS

20 Plaiiztijfand His Video, copyright, and Tradeinark21 10. Plaintiff is a comedian, narrator, writer, and actor, and is commonly

22 known by his alias, Randall.

23 II. On January 18, 2011, Plaintiff published a video (the Video) on24 YouTube that consisted of his original narration humorously describing the traits

25 of a honey badger. The Video, titled The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger (original26

27 The Video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yj g28 4



1 narration by Randall), became an instant hit. The Video went viral and is one2 of the most popular videos ever uploaded onto YouTube. To date, the Video has3 generated more than 75 million views on YouTube. The Video and subsequent

4 phenomendn have been covered by internet blogs such as the Huffington Post

5 (which proclaimed Honey Badger Dont Care {asj the best nature video of all6 time) as well as by entertainment and news outlets from Forbes to the Neit York7 Observer to TMZ.

8 12. Tn the Video, among Plaintiffs original expressions and jokes is that9 the HONEY BADGER DONT CARE. Plaintiffs original expression (and

10 others contained in the Video) have gained a tremendous amount of notoriety, and11 his expressions have been referred to in commercials, television shows,

12 magazines, and throughout the internet.

13 13. Plaintiff is the owner of trademark registrations for HONEY

14 BADGER DONT CARE (the Mark). Plaintiff registered the Mark with the15 United States Patent and Trademark Office for various classes of goods under the

16 following Registration Numbers: 4,505,781; 4,419,079; 4,419,081; and17 4,281,472. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and correct copies of the

18 Trademark Registrations.

19 14. After the Video was published, Plaintiff produced and sold goods,20 including, iiiter alia, t-shirts, sweatshirts, bumper stickers, hats, mugs and plush

21 dolls that displayed his Mark and expressions. Plaintiff has also selectively

22 licensed his intellectual property rights to third parties in order to monetize the23 profitability of his Mark.

24 15. Plaintiff primarily advertises his goods bearing his Mark on the25 internet. Sales of Plaintiffs merchandise bearing his Mark have been substantial,26 with a majority of the sales occurring via the internet.27

28 5



16. Plaintiffs trademark is inherently distinctive and/or has acquired

2 secondary meaning as to the source of all products advertised, marketed, sold, or

3 used in connection with his trademark and derivations thereof. The Mark and its

4 derivations are instantly recognizable as being associated with Plaintiff (i.e.5 Randall). The Mark and/or its derivations have appeared in Plaintiffs Video, and6 have since been displayed on numerous advertisements and goods that Plaintiff

7 promotes. Plaintiff even authored a book titled Honey Badger Don 1 Care:

S Ra,zdalls Guide to Crarv Nastyass Animals, and launched a mobile app titled

9 The Honea Badger Dont Care.

10 17. Plaintiff has expended a significant amount of time and effort in

11 making his Mark well-known to the public. Plaintiff has promoted his Mark by,12 inter a/ia, advertising it in connection with his products, making guest

13 appearances in media outlets, and publicizing the Mark through social media

14 platforms.

15 18. As a result of the foregoing, including, but not limited to, the

16 extensive advertisements, promotions, sales, and enormous popularity of the

17 Mark, the public has come to exclusively identify the Mark and its derivations

IS with Plaintiff. Among other things, Plaintiff, his expressions, and/or his Mark

19 have appeared or been alluded to in a Wonderful Pistachios commercial during

20 Dancing with the Stars, in an episode of the popular television show America s

21 Got Talent, in an episode of the hit television series G/ee by the shows famous

22 cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester (Jane Lynch), in a Vogue profile of celebrity23 recording artist Taylor Swift, and on the Howard Stern radio show (Baba Booey).24 Plaintiffs expressions and Mark are famous and distinctive under applicable law,

25 including within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. I 125(c)(1) and 1127.26

27

28 6



I Defendants Unlawful A ctivitks 1111(1 Willful Infringement2 19. Defendants are competitors of Plaintiff, as they also produce and sell3 similar merchandise to the general public.4 20. Defendants created, produced, distributed and sold merchandise,

5 including, inter a/ia, pillows and tumblers, that unlawfully bore Plaintiffs Mark

6 verbatim, without Plaintiffs permission to do so. Defendants produced and sold7 such infringing merchandise throughout the United States, including in the County

8 of Los Angeles. Defendants Tervis and Weavetec sold such infringing9 merchandise to at least BB&B, who in turn sold such infringing merchandise to

10 the general public.

21. Defendants unlawful use of Plaintiffs trademark and their unfair

12 competition enabled them to reap financial success, as Defendants produced and

13 sold numerous types of merchandise, all with derivations of Plaintiffs trademark.

14 On information and belief, Defendants sales of the infringing merchandise were

15 substantial, as the merchandise was sold in a multitude of stores throughout the

16 country.

17 22. In producing and selling the infringing merchandise, Defendants

18 intended to capitalize on Plaintiffs Mark, trample upon his intellectual property

19 rights, and cause customer confusion in the process. The various types of

20 infringing merchandise were not authorized by Plaintiff, though they misleadingly

21 appeared to be.

22 23. Defendants intentional and deceitful acts of unfair competition and

23 use of the Mark have caused confusion, and are likely to do so in the future, and

24 have caused mistake and deception as to the affiliation or association of the

25 Defendants with Plaintiff, and as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the

26 Defendants goods by Plaintiff, Plaintiff has neither authorized nor consented to27

28 7



1 the use by Defendants of the Mark, any colorable imitation of it, or any mark

2 confusingly similar to it.

3 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, the

4 Defendants purpose in utilizing the Mark is an attempt to benefit unfairly prom the5 valuable goodwill and extreme popularity of the Mark, which was established at6 great expense and effort by Plaintiff.

7 FIRST CLALM

8 (Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114 et seq. Against Al)9 Defendants)

10 25. Plaintiff repeats, repleads and realleges the allegations contained in

11 Paragraphs I through 24, as though fully set forth herein.

12 26. The aforesaid acts of Defendants constitute infringement of the Mark

13 under 15 U.S.C. lll4etseq.14 27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful acts,

15 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer and/or is likely to suffer damage to16 his trademark, reputation, and goodwill. Defendants will continue to use the Mark

17 and will cause irreparable damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at18 law and is entitled to an injunction restraining Defendants and their officers,19 agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in

20 further acts of infringement.

21 28. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from Defendants the actual22 damages that he sustained and/or is likely to sustain as a result of Defendants

23 wrongful acts. Plaintiff is presently unable to ascertain the full extent of the24 monetary damages that he has sustained and/or is likely to sustain by reason of25 Defendants acts of trademark infringement.

26 29. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from Defendants the gains,27

28 8



1 profits, and advantages that Defendants have obtained as a result of their wrongful

2 acts. Plaintiff is presently unable to ascertain the extent of the gains, profits, and

3 advantages that Defendants have realized by reason of their acts of trademark

4 infringement. I

5 30. Because of the willful nature of the wrongful acts of Defendants,

6 Plaintiffis entitled to all remedies available under 15 U.S.C. l 117 and 1118,7 including but not limited to an award of treble damages and increased profits

S pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117.9 31. Plaintiff also is entitled to recover his attorneys fees and costs of suit

10 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117.11 SECOND CLAIM

12 (Trademark Infringement under California Business and Professions Code13 section 14245 et seq. and California Common Law Against All Defendants)14 32. Plaintiff repeats, repleads and realleges paragraphs I through 31,

15 inclusive, of this Complaint and incorporates the same herein by the reference as

16 though set forth in full.

17 33. Defendants use of the Mark without Plaintiffs consent constitutes

18 trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of California common

19 law in that, among other things, such use is likely to cause confusion, deception,

20 and mistake among the consuming public as to the source, approval or sponsorship

21 of the goods offered by Defendants.

22 34. The acts and conduct of Defendants complained of herein constitute

23 trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of the statutory law of

24 California, including California Business and Professions Code section 14245 et

25 seq., in that, among other things, Defendants acts and conduct are likely to cause

26 confusion, deception, and mistake among the consuming public as to the source,

27

28 9



I approval or sponsorship of the goods offered by Defendants. Defendants acts are2 designed to trade upon Plaintiffs reputation and goodwill by causing confusion

3 and mistake among consumers and the public. Plaintiff is entitled to preliminary

4 and pem1anent injunctions restraining and enjoining Detendants and their officers,5 agents, affiliates, vendors, partners and employees, and all persons acting in

6 concert with Defendants, from using in commerce Plaintiffs federally registered

7 Mark and its derivations and his common law rights in same.

8 35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants willful and9 intentional actions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be determined

10 at trial. Plaintiff is entitled to all remedies provided by California Business and

ii Professions Code section 14247 ci seq., including injunctive relief and recovery of12 three times Defendants profits and damages suffered by reason of their wrongful

13 conduct. Because of the willful nature of Defendants wrongful acts, Plaintiff is14 entitled to an award of punitive damages.

15 THIRD CLAIM

16 (Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin in Violation of17 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) Against All Defendants)Is 36. Plaintiff repeats, repleads and realleges the allegations contained in19 Paragraphs 1 through 35, as though fully set forth herein.

20 37. Defendants acts as alleged above constitute unfair competition and a21 false designation of origin which have caused confusion, mistake, and deception22 as to the affiliation, connection or association of Defendants with Plaintiff and as23 to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants goods, services and/or24 activities by Plaintiff and are likely to do so in the figure, in violation of the25 Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).26 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful acts,27

28 10



I Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer and is likely to suffer damage to his

2 reputation, goodwill, and to the Mark. Defendants will continue the activities

3 alleged herein and will cause irreparable damage to Plaintiff Plaintiff has no4 adequate remedy at law and is entitled to an injunction restraining Defendants,5 their officers, agents, affiliates, vendors, partners and employees, and all persons

6 acting in conceit with Defendants, from engaging in further acts of unfair7 competition, deceitful acts using the Mark, and false designation of origin andS false affiliation and association.

9 39. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from Defendants the actual10 damages that he sustained and/or is likely to sustain as a result of Defendants

11 wrongful and devious acts. Plaintiff is presently unable to ascertain the full extent12 of the monetary damages that he has suffered and/or is likely to sustain by reason

13 ofDefendants acts of unfair competition and false designation of origin and false

14 affiliation and association.

15 40. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from Defendants the gains,

16 profits, and advantages they have obtained as a result of their wrongful and17 malicious acts. Plaintiff is presently unable to ascertain the extent of the gains,

IS profits, and advantages that Defendants have realized by reason of their acts of

19 unfair competition and false designation of origin and false affiliation and20 association.

21 41. Because of the willful nature of the wrongful acts of Defendants,22 Plaintiff is entitled to an award of treble damages and increased profits pursuant to

23 15U.S.C.*1117.24 42. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover his attorneys fees and costs of suit25 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117.26

27

28 11



FOURTH CLAIM

2 (Unfair Competition Against All Defendants)3 43. Plaintiff repeats, repleads and realleges paragraphs I through 42,4 inclusive, of this Complaint and indorporates the same herein by the reference as5 though set forth in full.

6 44. Defendants actions constitute unfair competition under the statutory

7 law of California, including California Business and Professions Code section8 17200, ci seq., and under the common law of the State of California.9 45. The acts and conduct of Defendants complained of herein have

10 caused Plaintiff irreparable injury, and will, unless retrained, further impair theii value of his Mark, intellectual property rights, reputation, and goodwill. Plaintiff

12 has no adequate remedy at law.

13 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have unlawfully

14 obtained profits through their acts of unfair competition. Defendants should be15 forced to disgorge such unlawful profits to Plaintiff.

16 47. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from Defendants his actual17 damages sustained as a result of Defendants wrongful acts. Plaintiff is presently18 unable to ascertain the full extent of the monetary damages he has suffered by19 reason of Defendants acts of unfair competition.

20 48. Because of the willful nature of Defendants wrongful acts, Plaintiff21 is entitled to an award of punitive damages.

22 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

23 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and each24 of them as follows:

25 1. That Defendants have (i) infringed the Mark under 15 U.S.C. 111426 etseq.; (ii) infringed the Mark under California law; and (iii) engaged in unfair27

28 12



i competition, and violated California Business and Professions Code section 17200

2 etseq.

3 2. That each of the above acts were willful.

4 3. That Plainttf be awarded (i) all profits of Defendants, (ii) all of his5 damages, (iii) statutory damages available under the law including 15 U.S.C.6 1117, if elected, (iv) treble damages, (v) punitive damages, (vi) disgorgernent and7 restitution of all benefits received by Defendants arising from their infringement

8 as provided by law, and/or (vii) enhanced damages for Defendants willful9 infringement as provided in 15 U.S.C. 1117, the sum of which will be proven at

10 the time of trial.

ii 4. That Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, affiliates, partners,

12 vendors, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or

13 participation with them, be preliminarfly and permanently enjoined from:14 a. Using Plaintiffs expression and mark HONEY BADGER

15 DONT CARE or any colorable imitation thereof or any other

16 expression or mark likely to cause confusion, mistake, or

17 deception, in connection with the sale, offering for sale,

18 distribution, manufacturing, advertising, or promotion of their

19 goods or services;

20 b. Using any false designation of origin or false description that

21 can, or is likely to, lead the public to believe that any product

22 manufactured, distributed, sold, offered for sale, or advertised

23 by Defendant are in any manner associated or connected with

24 Plaintiff is sold, manufactured, licensed, sponsored, or

25 approved or authorized by Plaintiff; and

26 c. Engaging in any other activity constituting an infringement of

27

28 13



Plaintiffs trademark rights or otherwise unfairly competing

2 with Plaintiff

3 5. That Defendants be directed to deliver up to Plaintiff all products4 bearing the Mark, any copy, simulation, variation or colorable imitations of the

5 Mark, and any documents or tangible things that discuss, describe, mention or

6 relate to such products.

7 6. That Defendants file with the Court and serve upon Plaintiffs

S counsel within thirty (30) days after entry ofjudgment a report in writing under9 oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have

10 comp]ied with the requirements of the injunction.ii 7. That Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiff all of his costs,12 disbursements, and attorneys fees in this action.

13 8. For prejudgment interest.14 9. For such other relief as the Court deems proper.

15

16 DATED: October 15, 2015 KRANE & SMITH, APC

18

______

Daniel L. Reback19 Attorneys for Plaintiff,

CHRISTOPHER GORDON20

21

7

23

24

25

26

27

28 14



DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER GORDON hereby demands a jury trial in thisaction.

4 I

5 DATED: October 15, 2015 KRANE & SMITH, APC

By______Daniel L. Reback

S Attorneys for Plaintiff,CHRISTOPHER GORDON

9

10

11

12I,Ii

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

7

23

24

25

26

27

28 15



r.

tatc at1niteb tte 3tent enb tabentath @Itftc 1

HONEY BADGER DONT CARE

Reg. No. 4,505,78JRegistered Apr. 1,2014Jut. Cl.: 25

TRADEMARK

PRINCIPAL REGISTER

Deputy Director nrthe UnIted SttaPoIc& nd T,,degnrk OW.ct

CHRISTOPHER Z. GORDON (UNITED STATES INDIVIDUAL)C/C SANA HAKIM OF K&L GATESP0, Box 1135CHICAGO. IL 606901135

FOR: CLOTHING, NAMEIX T.SHIRTS,ThNK TOPS, ONE PIECEGARMEm-FORINFAmSAND TODDLERS, LONG-SLEEVE SHIRTS. CAPS. IN CLASS 2$ (U.S. CLS. 22 AND 39).

FIRST USE 2-24-2011; IN COMMERCE 2-24-2011.

TIC MARX CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHARACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY PAR.TICLIAR FoNT, STYLE, SIZE, OR COLOR

SN 85-447,667, FILED 10.14-2011.

SCOI7 B:BB. EXAMINING AnOP2JEY

Z 2

EXHIBIT A


,tatc 01V4pjtcb ,tatfl 19atent anti ZErabcinark ftfte 1


Reg. No. 4,419,079Registered Oct 15, 2013tnt. CL: 9

TR4DEMARK

PRINCIPAL REGLSTER

CWUSTOPIIERZ. GORDON (UNrFEP STATES INDIVIDUAL)dO SANA HAKIM OF K&L GATESP0 BOX 1135CHICAGO, IL 606901135

FOR AUDIO BOOKS tN ThE FIELD OF COMEDY, PARODY AND SAt ; COMPUTERAPPLICATION SOFTWARE FOR MOBILE PHONES, PORtABLE MEDIA PLAYERS,RANUHaD COMPUTERS, NAMEL SOFTWARE FOR PLAYING GAMES, IN CLASS 9(U.S. CLS. fl 23, 26. 3AND 38).FIRST USE 12.0-2911; INCO!CvIERCE 12-0-2011

TILE MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHABAaER5 V/IWOUT CLAIM TO ANY PARTICULAR FON9 STYLE, SIZE OR COLOR.

SN 85-447,668, FILED 10.14-2011,

SCOfl BIBB, EXAMINWG ATFORJ1EY

cea.t= it. 1.td lw P.e u D,,


7--

,tatc Ofniteb tatc jatent anb tffribemark @ffhrc


Reg. No. 4,419,081Registered Oct. 15,2013mt. CL: 28

TRADEMARK

PRINCWAL RECISTER

CH?JSJOPHER 1 GORDON (UNflED STATES IND:vIDUAL)CO SANA HAKIM OF K&L OAThSPG. BOX 1135CrnCAGO IL 606901135

POR(EASEDONUSE) CHrnSThASThEEORNAMENTSANV OECORATIONS;I4LKNGDDLLS AND PLUSH TOYS. IN CLASS 28 (U.S CLS. 22, 23. 3BANO 50

FIRfl USE W8-201I; IN COMMERCE 10-5.2011.

THE MARX CONSISTS OF STkNDAIID CHARACTERS WIThOUT CLAIN TO ANY PAR.TICULAR FOIfF, STYLE, SIZE. OR COLOR.

SN 85-449,924, FILED 10-18-201 I.

SCOTT 51DB, EXAMINING ATTORNEY


tate of?HuIt?b taW% atnt irnb rabcmarh Dffice


Reg. No. 4,281,472Registered Jan. 29, 2013mt. Cl.: 21

TRADEMARK

PRINCrPAL REGISThR

CHRISTOPHER 1. GORDON (UNITED STATES INDIVIDUAL)C/C SANA HAKIM OF K&L GATESP.O. Box 135CHICAGO, IL 606901135

FOR; MUGS, IN CLASS 21 (US. CLS, 2,13,23,29.30.33,40 AND 50).

FIRST USE 10-7-2011; IN CONVVIEKCE 10-7-2011

ThE MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHARACTERS WiTHOUT CLAIM TO ANY PAR.TICULARFON7, SrrTE, SIZE, OR COL,OP.

SER. NO. 85-449,92). FILED 10- I 8-201 I.

SCOfl BIBO, EXAMIN)NGAflORNEY


EXHIBIT A

Gordon v. Bed Bath & Beyond - Honey Badger Don't Care complaint.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Gordon v. Bed Bath & Beyond - Honey Badger Don't Care complaint.pdf