Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x
:
MONTAUK JUICE FACTORY INC.,
:
THE END BROOKLYN,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
STARBUCKS CORPORATION d/b/a
:
STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY
:
:
Defendant.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------x

Civ.

1:17-cv-02678

COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Montauk Juice Factory Inc. (“Montauk Juice”), owners of co-plaintiff The End
Brooklyn (“The End,” collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, bring this action
against Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company (“Starbucks” or “Defendant”),
and allege, upon personal knowledge of their own acts and status and upon information and
belief as to all other matters, as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This is an action seeking to hold Defendant accountable for infringing, diluting,

and otherwise diminishing the value of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property. Starbucks’ decision to
launch, promote, and sell a product called a “Unicorn Frappuccino” (a “flavor-changing, colorchanging, totally not-made-up” product, according to Defendant’s website) infringed on
Plaintiffs’ distinctive and famous trademark in the name UNICORN LATTE, a name that
Plaintiffs have used since last year to refer to their own popular colorful beverage. The size of
and scope of Starbucks’ product launch was designed so that the Unicorn Frappuccino would
eclipse the Unicorn Latte in the market, thereby harming Plaintiffs and confusing their

1

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2

customers. In addition to having a highly similar name, Starbucks’ Unicorn Frappuccino shares
visual similarities to the Unicorn Latte in that both were brightly colored and featured the colors
pink and blue prominently, the below diagram reflects an advertisement for the Unicorn Latte on
the left and the Unicorn Frappuccino on the right:

Unicorn Latte
2.

Unicorn Frappuccino

The End began selling the Unicorn Latte in December 2016. Despite the

distinctive name, the Unicorn Latte contained no coffee or milk and was instead a freshly-made
blended beverage containing fresh ingredients such as cold-pressed ginger, lemon juice, dates,
cashews, blended with additional healthy, dried ingredients such as maca root, blue-green algae,
and vanilla bean.
3.

In December 2016, the Unicorn Latte began appearing in articles published by

both traditional and online media outlets, including in the New York Times, the Huffington Post,
and TimeOut Magazine. The press, coupled with advertising efforts and broad social media

2

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3

exposure on Facebook and Instagram (via the hashtag #unicornlatte), made the Unicorn Latte
name and product famous.
4.

To capitalize on and protect their rights in a successful and popular product,

Plaintiffs applied to register the name “UNICORN LATTE” with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Specifically, Plaintiffs filed a TEAS Plus Application with the
USPTO on January 20, 2017; a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The pending application
was and is publicly accessible on the USPTO’s website.
5.

On April 17, 2017, Starbucks began selling and aggressively marketing a new

blended beverage product called the “Unicorn Frappuccino”. Like Plaintiffs’ product, the
Unicorn Frappuccino contains no coffee, despite the name. However, while the Unicorn Latte is
a blend of fresh juices and healthy ingredients, the Unicorn Frappuccino is a concoction of milk,
artificial sweeteners, color additives, and pinches of fruit juice concentrate for flavor. At no
point prior to developing, marketing, and launching its product did Starbucks approach Plaintiffs
for permission to use a name deceptively similar to Unicorn Latte.
6.

Starbucks has more than 13,000 stores in the United States and approximately

2,000 stores in Canada and Mexico. Starbucks’ massive and public launch of the Unicorn
Frappuccino across North America meant that its product became the dominant “Unicorn”
beverage overnight. The press immediately publicized the product and Starbucks’ sophisticated
social media apparatus ensured that Unicorn Frappuccinos became a viral sensation on
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
7.

This, in turn, immediately caused consumer confusion whereby customers began

referring to Starbucks’ product as a “Unicorn Latte,” began assuming that Plaintiffs’ product was
a copy-cat or knockoff, and began asking employees at The End to serve them a “Unicorn

3

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4

Frappuccino.” Starbucks’ products began appearing on social media labeled with the hashtag
#unicornlatte, online publications began referring to Starbucks’ products as Unicorn Lattes, and
Plaintiffs’ Unicorn Latte—while still occasionally mentioned—was reduced to an “also ran”
anecdote to Starbucks’ Unicorn Frappuccino.
8.

While Starbucks’ product has been temporarily taken off the market—it was

always intended as a limited-run item—the damage to Plaintiffs’ trademark and business
continues and, to an extent, may well be irreparable. Starbucks’ conduct has diluted the
distinctive quality of Plaintiffs’ famous UNICORN LATTE mark and has and is likely to
continue to confuse consumers into believing that Starbucks’ products are affiliated with, or are
otherwise endorsed or approved by Plaintiffs, and vice-versa.
9.

In order to protect their valuable intellectual property, Plaintiffs bring this action

in law and equity for (i) trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair
competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.; (ii) trademark dilution under 15
U.S.C. § 1125(c); (iii) unfair competition under the common law; (iv) trademark infringement
and unfair compensation under New York General Business Law § 360-k; and (v) trademark
dilution and injury to business reputation under New York General Business Law § 360-l.
PARTIES
10.

Plaintiff, Montauk Juice Factory Inc., is a New York-based company that

produces and markets fresh-squeezed juices, other blended beverages, and various coffee
products. Montauk Juice owns and operates co-plaintiff The End Brooklyn, a coffee and
beverage shop located in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, New York that markets and sells coffee and
other blended beverages, including the Unicorn Latte. Montauk Juice Factory Inc. is
headquartered at 12 South Etna Avenue, Montauk, New York, 11954 and operates The End

4

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5

Brooklyn, which has a business address of 522 Metropolitan Avenue, Brooklyn, New York,
11211.
11.

Defendant Starbucks is a multi-national beverage corporation with its principal

office at 2401 Utah Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98134. Starbucks operates 13,107 stores
in the United States, 897 of which are in New York State and 361 are in New York City.
Starbucks also operates approximately 2,000 stores in Canada and Mexico, through its corporate
subsidiaries.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §

1121, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 with respect to the claims arising under federal law and
supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b) with respect to
the claims arising under the laws of New York State.
13.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Starbucks because, inter alia, Starbucks

regularly conducts business in New York through the 897 stores it operates and has offered and
sold its infringing Unicorn Frappuccino products in New York. Starbucks’ actions have caused
injury to Plaintiff and to consumers in New York.
14.

Venue in this county is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because defendants

conduct or have conducted business in this judicial district and Plaintiffs have suffered injury in
this district, and because this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this district.

5

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
The End creates and markets the Unicorn Latte
15.

On July 20, 2016, Montauk Juice opened The End in Williamsburg in order to

have a prominent retail space to sell new creative coffee and blended beverages that they invent.
The store sells healthy, colorful beverages such as the Radiance Beauty and the Bonfire Cider.
16.

Madeline Murphy, a co-owner of Montauk Juice and the manager of The End,

creates healthy blended beverages that taste great. Her greatest invention thus far is the
UNICORN LATTE, a healthy, unique, colorful, blended beverage, which she began developing
in the springtime of 2016.
17.

The Unicorn Latte does not contain cow’s milk, processed sugar, or food dye.

Instead, the Unicorn Latte contains a number of superfoods, which are embraced by the wellness
community for their “magical” healing properties. The “Unicorn” in Unicorn Latte is meant to
evoke in the consumer’s mind the magical characteristics associated with the mythical creature.
The colorful look of the Unicorn Latte is, in part, meant to play on the pop-culture association of
unicorns with bright or pastel colors and, in part, because the Unicorn Latte fits with the current
trend of colorful foods—a relatively recent interest, particularly on the Internet, with multicolored foods that includes Unicorn Noodles, Rainbow Bagels, Mermaid Toast, and even
Unicorn Poop.
18.

Ms. Murphy’s partners at Montauk Juice recognized how special her creation was

and developed a marketing strategy for a launch of the Unicorn Latte. After six months of
development and consumer testing, The End launched the Unicorn Latte on their menu, officially
offering it for sale around December 2016.

6

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7

19.

On December 19, 2016, the New York Times Style Magazine published an article

about the Unicorn Latte, including a photograph of the product and a list of its ingredients. More
press followed, with the Huffington Post, TimeOut Magazine, Metro UK, Lonely Planet, and
many more online publications writing articles. New York Live TV and NBC New York
promoted, and continue to promote, the Unicorn Latte on the televisions in back of New York
City taxi cabs.
20.

Owing to a combination of deliberate marketing by Plaintiffs and word-of-mouth

or viral marketing, the Unicorn Latte quickly became popular on social media such as Facebook
and Instagram. Indeed, the hashtag #unicornlatte contains many pictures of the Unicorn Latte
posted by various individuals. As one publication, AM New York, noted: “The End’s Unicorn
Latte is made for Instagram.”
21.

Since its launch, the Unicorn Latte has generated significant revenue for The End,

accounting for approximately 25% of the store’s revenue since January 2017.
22.

In response to the demand for the Unicorn Latte, the recently-generated press, and

the fame that the Unicorn Latte had attained, Montauk Juice Factory Inc. submitted a TEAS Plus
Application for the UNICORN LATTE Trademark on January 20, 2017, which is attached as
Exhibit A.
Starbucks’ massive Unicorn Frappuccino launch eclipses the Unicorn Latte
23.

In mid-April 2017, while The End’s Unicorn Latte was enjoying success and

widespread coverage, rumors began to circulate that Starbucks was planning a launch of its own
multi-colored beverage in the form of a “Unicorn Frappuccino.”
24.

On April 18, 2017, Starbucks announced that its Unicorn Frappuccino would be

available for a limited time in a press release titled “Starbucks Weaves its Magic with New Color

7

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8

and Flavor Changing Unicorn Frappuccino.” Aside from the similar name, the new drink, like
the Unicorn Latte, was brightly colored—featuring pink and blue prominently—and included the
addition of powdered topping which was reminiscent of the Unicorn Latte’s decoration. As a
result, Starbucks’ Unicorn Frappuccino presented itself as a deceptively similar beverage to the
Unicorn Latte in both name and appearance:

Unicorn Latte

25.

Unicorn Frappuccino

Starbucks’ Unicorn Frappuccino press release also made no secret about

Starbucks’ intention to establish its deceptively similar beverage as the main (if not the only)
“unicorn” beverage on social media. In fact, Starbucks explicitly bragged: “Once only found in
enchanted forests, unicorns have been popping up in social media with shimmering unicornthemed food and drinks. Now Starbucks is taking the trend to a new level with the first Unicorn
Frappuccino® blended beverage . . . .” In effect, Starbucks announced that its Unicorn

8

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9

Frappuccino was created with the intent of achieving broad exposure on social media; yet
another point of similarity with the Unicorn Latte, a beverage that was “made for Instagram.”
26.

Critically, while Starbucks does not directly mention the Unicorn Latte in its

release, the reference to “unicorn-themed food and drinks” and Plaintiffs’ outstanding USPTO
application for the Unicorn Latte demonstrate that Starbucks was well aware that it was
launching a product that was deceptively and confusingly similar to The End’s in name,
appearance, and intended publicity channels.
27.

Nobody from Starbucks reached out to the owners or management of Montauk

Juice, The End, or any of their representatives to inquire about the use of the mark. Moreover,
Starbucks disregarded the Trademark Application on file with the USPTO, despite the
application being publicly available via the USPTO website, including as a result of searches for
marks that include the word “unicorn.”
28.

On April 19, 2017, Starbucks executed its carefully planned strategy to begin

selling and aggressively marketing the Unicorn Frappuccino in participating stores throughout
the United States, including in New York City, as well as Canada and Mexico.
Starbucks’ Unicorn Frappuccino causes widespread consumer confusion
29.

Almost immediately, consumers became confused over the origination and

affiliation of the Unicorn Frappuccino. On Instagram, the hashtag #unicornlatte began to be
populated with pictures of Starbucks’ Unicorn Frappuccino. Comments on Instagram show
evidence of consumer confusion as to the origination of the blended beverage, with many people
believing that Starbucks invented the beverage.
30.

The coordinated social media blitz orchestrated by Starbucks drowned out the

fame that any coffee shop in Brooklyn could obtain. Press outlets immediately picked up the

9

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10

story and reinforced the consumer confusion over the origination of the Unicorn blended
beverage that had already begun. Some media outlets recognized The End as the creator of the
Unicorn blended beverage, but many did not and instead focused on how aesthetically attractive
the Starbucks drink was for social media.
31.

Individuals previously aware of the Unicorn Latte became confused about

whether Starbucks’ Unicorn Frappuccino was the same healthy concoction developed by the
Plaintiffs and if it had been licensed to Starbucks.
32.

Confused by the ubiquity of Defendant’s products, especially on social media,

individuals who were not previously aware of the Unicorn Latte now believe that Starbucks’
Unicorn Frappuccino came first and that The End’s Unicorn Latte was inspired by Starbucks’
Unicorn Frappuccino. Ms. Murphy now regularly gets asked at The End whether the Unicorn
Latte was inspired by Starbucks.
33.

Media outlets and individuals on social media referred to the Starbucks’

Frappuccino as a Unicorn Latte:
a. “Starbucks Puts Unicorn Latte On Menu” is the title of a YouTube video by
Chasing News, who is a contributor to My9 in New Jersey, Fox29 Philly, and Fox

10

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11

5 WNYW:

b. Individuals posting to Instagram and other social media outlets refer to Starbucks’
Unicorn Frappuccino as a Unicorn Latte and use the hashtag, #unicornlatte:

11

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12

34.

This widespread confusion was made worse by the derision and ridicule that

Starbucks’ Unicorn Frappuccino encountered upon launch. For example, People Magazine
broadly proclaimed that Katy Perry, a world-renowned recording artist and marketing icon,
“Spits Out Starbucks’ Unicorn Frappuccino After One Sip.” Likewise, social media posts began
appearing that chastised Starbucks for their “Unicorn Latte,” including: “Forget the gross
#UnicornLatte from @Starbucks! Try making these for a #healthy treat . . . .” Thus, consumers
who would have been interested in the Unicorn Latte because of the health benefits of the
beverage now associate it with the unhealthy ingredients of Starbucks’ “Unicorn Frappuccino”
and are deterred from trying it. Customers who would have been drawn to the Unicorn Latte’s
popularity on social media including through the #unicornlatte hashtag now associate it with a
much larger social media conversation—much of which is critical of the Unicorn Frappuccino
and those that post about it.
35.

As a result, the Unicorn Latte sold by The End has suffered, and continues to

suffer, brand dilution and tarnishment. The consumer confusion ruins the goodwill associated
with the UNICORN LATTE brand that Plaintiffs worked so hard to achieve.
Plaintiffs seek to protect their valuable intellectual property
36.

On April 24, 2017, counsel for Plaintiffs sent Defendant a cease-and-desist letter,

notifying Defendant of the enormous damage caused by its infringement on Plaintiffs’ mark.
Defendant responded by, first, claiming that Plaintiffs did not have a protectable mark, second,
threatening to oppose Plaintiffs’ application with the USPTO, and third, offering token
concessions such as not marketing a product using the exact name “Unicorn Latte” or offering a
juice product with the word “unicorn” in its name.

12

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13

37.

Starbucks’ purported concessions were plainly inadequate. To begin with,

Starbucks has already earned millions of dollars from its infringement and caused irreparable
harm to Plaintiffs’ valuable UNICORN LATTE mark; Plaintiffs’ immediate concern was not that
Starbucks would launch a Unicorn Latte but the use of Unicorn Frappuccino as a product name.
Second, Starbucks’ press release suggested that their Unicorn Frappuccino product could return
to the market at some later date, given that it was only the “first Starbucks Frappuccino®
blended beverage . . . .” Finally, despite their offer, online news and social media posts have
already begun circulating rumors and actual photos of a “Unicorn Lemonade” product, with at
least one article stating: “Now, Starbucks Baristas are making ‘Unicorn Lemonade.’”
38.

To be sure, Plaintiffs have been policing its mark since launching the Unicorn

Latte in 2016. In fact, Starbucks was not the first to infringe on the UNICORN LATTE mark. A
beverage shop in Times Square began selling a “Unicorn Latte” in March 2017. Promptly, Jason
Foscolo on behalf of Montauk Juice sent a cease and desist letter demanding that they stop
selling the Unicorn Latte or change the name of the beverage. The beverage shop immediately
responded by changing the name of their colorfully blended beverage.
39.

Unless the relief requested is granted, Starbucks’ ill-gotten gains will have been

achieved through unlawful means that have already caused and will continue to cause irreparable
harm to Plaintiffs’ intellectual property and harm the goodwill that had been accomplished
through ingenuity and hard work.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, and False Designation of Origin
Under The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.
40.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint.

13

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14

41.

Plaintiffs possess valid and enforceable rights in the UNICORN LATTE mark in

connection with all of the goods and services at issue in this case by virtue of their extensive use,
registration, promotion, and advertisement of the UNICORN LATTE mark, and have possessed
such rights at all times material hereto.
42.

By virtue of its extensive use, registration, advertising, promotion, and consumer

and marketplace recognition, the UNICORN LATTE mark is famous and distinctive, and is
entitled to protection against likely dilution by blurring and by tarnishment.
43.

Starbucks commenced the activities complained of herein after the UNICORN

LATTE mark had become famous.
44.

Starbucks’ conduct is willful, deliberate, in bad faith, and undertaken with

knowledge of Plaintiffs’ prior rights, and with full knowledge that Starbucks has no right,
license, or authority to use Plaintiffs’ trademark or any confusingly similar variant thereof,
including Unicorn Frappuccino.
45.

Defendant’s unauthorized use of the Plaintiffs’ marks is likely to cause confusion,

or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the sponsorship, affiliation, connection, or association of
Defendant or Defendant’s commercial activities with Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ commercial
activities, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendant’s services or commercial
activities by the Plaintiffs.
46.

Defendant’s aforementioned acts constitute willful violation of Plaintiffs’ marks

in violation of the Lanham Act, Sections 32 and 43, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125.
47.

By such wrongful acts, Defendant has caused, and unless restrained by the Court

under 15 U.S.C. § 1116 will continue to cause, serious irreparable injury and damage to

14

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15

Plaintiffs and to the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs’ marks. This harm constitutes an injury
for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Trademark Dilution under the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
48.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs.
49.

Defendant’s aforementioned acts constitute trademark dilution in violation of the

Lanham Act, Section 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § l 125(c).
50.

By such wrongful acts, Defendant has caused, and unless restrained by the Court

will continue to cause, serious irreparable injury and damage to plaintiff and to the goodwill
associated with the Plaintiffs’ marks. Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Common Law Trademark Infringement
51.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs.
52.

Defendant’s aforementioned acts constitute unfair competition under the common

53.

By such wrongful acts, Defendant has caused, and unless restrained by the Court

law.

will continue to cause, serious irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiffs and to the goodwill
associated with the Plaintiffs’ marks. Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
New York Trademark Infringement and
Unfair Competition N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law§ 360-k
54.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs.

15

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16

55.

Defendant’s aforementioned acts constitute willful violation of Plaintiffs’ marks

in violation of the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law§ 360-k.
56.

By such wrongful acts, Defendant has caused, and unless restrained by the Court

will continue to cause, serious irreparable injury and damage to plaintiff and to the goodwill
associated with the Plaintiffs’ marks. Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
New York Trademark Dilution and
Injury to Business Reputation N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law§ 360-l
57.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs.
58.

Defendant’s aforementioned acts constitute willful violation of Plaintiffs’ marks

in violation of the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law§ 360-l.
59.

By such wrongful acts, Defendant has caused, and unless restrained by the Court

will continue to cause, serious irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiffs and to the goodwill
associated with the Plaintiffs’ marks. Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
60.

Plaintiffs are a direct competitor of Starbucks. Starbucks’ actions described

above are likely to mislead consumers about the nature, quality, characteristics, and/or source of
its products and divert customers from The End to Starbucks. Starbucks’ conduct has caused and
is causing irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and, unless enjoined by the Court, will continue both to
damage Plaintiffs and to deceive the public. This harm constitutes an injury for which Plaintiffs
have no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:
1.

Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on all counts;
16

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17

2.

Enter a permanent injunction restraining Starbucks and its officers, directors,

employees, agents, affiliates, successors, assigns, franchisees, licensees, and all those in privity
or acting in concert with them:
a. From in any way diluting, using, displaying, advertising, copying,
imitating, or infringing upon the UNICORN LATTE mark, including by
using the UNICORN FRAPPUCCINO mark;
b. From using or displaying the UNICORN LATTE mark or confusingly
similar variations thereof, including without limitation the UNICORN
FRAPPUCCINO mark, on or in connection with any products or in any
written, oral, or audiovisual advertisements, displays, signs, sales
promotions, the Internet, or in any other public communication in
connection with Starbucks goods or services;
c. From otherwise diluting or infringing upon Plaintiffs’ UNICORN LATTE;
d. From otherwise unfairly competing with Plaintiffs;
3.

Order that Starbucks account and pay over to Plaintiffs all gains, profits, and

advantages derived from the conduct alleged herein, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and other
applicable law;
4.

Order that Starbucks pay Plaintiffs the damages that Plaintiffs has sustained by

reason of the conduct alleged herein;
5.

Order that Starbucks pay Plaintiffs enhanced damages as provided by 15 U.S.C. §

1117 and other applicable law;
6.

Order that Starbucks pay pre-judgment interest on Plaintiffs’ damages as provided

by 15 U.S.C. §1117 and other applicable law;
7.

Order that Starbucks pay the costs of this action as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117

and other applicable law;
8.

Order that Starbucks pay the attorneys’ fees as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and

other applicable law; and

17

 Case 1:17-cv-02678 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18

9.

Order that Starbucks be directed to deliver to the Clerk of this Court for

destruction, or show proof of destruction, of any and all products, signs, advertisements,
publications, labels, and any and all other materials in their possession, custody, or control that
depict or relate to the development, marketing, or sale of the Unicorn Frappuccino, Unicorn
Lemonade, or any other of products that infringe on Plaintiffs’ mark in accordance with 15
U.S.C. § 1118.
10.

Order that Starbucks publish for a period of six (6) months on a website and in

print media a statement correcting the confusion as to the unlawful use of the mark and the
origination of the UNICORN LATTE.
11.

Grant such other and further relief as is just and proper.
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues triable of right by a jury which are raised for
determination.
Dated:

New York, New York
May 3, 2017

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Joshua I. Schiller
Joshua I. Schiller
Benjamin Margulis
Demetri Blaisdell
Alexander Boies
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Tel: (212) 446-2300
jischiller@bsfllp.com
bmargulis@bsfllp.com
dblaisdell@bsfllp.com
aboies@bsfllp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18