Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 2 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 3 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 4 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 5 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 6 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 7 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 8 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 9 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 10 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 11 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 12 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 13 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 14 of 14
Exhibit A
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 1 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KV PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
vs. )
)
KVK-TECH, INC., )
Serve at: 110 Terry Drive, Suite 200 )
Newtown, PA 18940 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
This is an action for trade name infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham
Act, unfair competition under Missouri common law, and dilution under Missouri statutory law.
Plaintiff KV Pharmaceutical Company (“Plaintiff” or “KV”) is seeking a permanent injunction,
damages, profits, treble damages or profits, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Plaintiff, appearing
through its undersigned counsel, alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 2503
South Hanley Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63144-2555. Plaintiff is incorporated under the name
“K-V Pharmaceutical Company” and uses the trade name “KV Pharmaceutical Company.”
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant KVK-Tech, Inc. (“Defendant” or
“KVK”) is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at 110 Terry Drive,
Suite 200, Newtown, Pennsylvania 18940.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 2 of 22
- 2 -
23235232\V-2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This is a claim for damages and injunctive relief for unfair competition under the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), et seq., for unfair competition under Missouri common law,
and for dilution under the Missouri Dilution Statute, Mo. Stat. § 417.061(1).
4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint which
arise under the statutory and common law of the State of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), since the state law claims are so related to the federal claims
that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of
operative facts.
6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant
transacts business within this judicial district, and the acts complained of herein that have caused
and are continuing to cause injury to Plaintiff have occurred and are continuing to occur within
this judicial district.
PLAINTIFF’S DISTINCTIVE KV TRADE NAME
7. KV is a recognized leader in the manufacture and sale of generic and branded
pharmaceuticals and the development of drug delivery technologies. KV markets and distributes
its product lines through its three subsidiary companies: Ther-Rx Corporation (branded
pharmaceuticals), ETHEX Corporation (generic pharmaceuticals), and Particle Dynamics, Inc.
(drug delivery technologies).
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 3 of 22
- 3 -
23235232\V-2
8. KV was founded in 1942 and has used the distinctive trade name “KV
Pharmaceutical” (the “KV Trade Name”) to identify itself in commerce for over 50 years.
9. KV is a contract researcher and manufacturer for major pharmaceutical
companies. In the early 1950s, KV began developing and patenting drug delivery technologies
such as extended-release and coating technologies. In the 1970s, KV enhanced its business by
developing raw materials for the pharmaceutical, nutritional, and personal markets. KV began
producing generic drugs in the early 1990s. In 1999, KV established its subsidiary Ther-Rx
Corporation to market branded pharmaceutical products manufactured by KV.
10. KV is today a full-fledged pharmaceutical company which obtains over 90% of its
revenues from the sale of pharmaceutical products.
11. KV is widely regarded as one of the best-run and most admired small companies
in America. In 2004, KV was listed in Forbes Magazine’s list of “America’s 200 Best Small
Companies.” KV uses the ticker symbols “KVA” and “KVB” to identify its two classes of
publicly traded stock.
12. KV’s revenues have increased every year for twelve straight years and have
doubled over the last five years. In fiscal year 2007, Plaintiff’s unaudited gross revenues from
the sale of pharmaceutical products were approximately $424.5 million. Plaintiff’s total gross
revenues from fiscal years 2001-2007 are over $1.8 billion.
13. Plaintiff, through its subsidiaries ETHEX and Ther-Rx, has widely advertised
itself as a manufacturer and seller of pharmaceutical products and drug delivery technologies.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 4 of 22
- 4 -
23235232\V-2
14. Plaintiff prominently displays the KV Trade Name on its web site, on its
letterhead, in press releases, on its employees’ business cards, on the packaging and inserts for
ETHEX and Ther-Rx products, and on promotional and marketing material.
15. Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name serves as a unique identifier of Plaintiff’s products
among the general public, including consumers in the pharmaceuticals market, and serves to
distinguish Plaintiff’s products from its competitors’ products.
16. As a result of Plaintiff’s longtime use, substantial sales, and significant
promotional efforts for Plaintiff’s pharmaceutical products, Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name has
become well known to the pharmaceutical industry and the general public throughout the United
States.
17. Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name has achieved a secondary meaning in the market place
among pharmaceutical customers and the general public identifying Plaintiff as the sole source
of its goods. Customers and members of the general public throughout the United States have
come to recognize the KV Trade Name and to associate the KV Trade Name exclusively with
Plaintiff and Plaintiff ‘s goods. Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name is a business asset of substantial
value to Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT’S USE OF KVK AS A TRADE NAME AND TRADEMARK
18. Upon information and belief, Defendant is in the business of developing,
manufacturing, and marketing generic and proprietary pharmaceuticals.
19. Defendant uses the trade name “KVK-TECH.” Upon information and belief,
Defendant began using this trade name no earlier than 2002, long after Plaintiff’s first use of the
KV Trade Name.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 5 of 22
- 5 -
23235232\V-2
20. Defendant promotes and sells its pharmaceutical products under the trademark
KVK. Upon information and belief, Defendant began commercially using this trademark no
earlier than 2002, long after Plaintiff’s first use of the KV Trade Name.
21. Defendant’s pharmaceutical products compete directly in the same market with
Plaintiff’s pharmaceutical products and are marketed and sold to the same consumers as
Plaintiff’s pharmaceutical products.
22. Defendant is actively promoting its pharmaceutical products on the Internet using
the domain names www.kvktech.com, www.kvk-tech.com, and www.kvkresearch.com.
Plaintiff’s URL address is www.kvpharmaceutical.com.
COUNT I - UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
23. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 22 above, as if fully set forth
herein.
24. Plaintiff’s continuous and substantially exclusive use of Plaintiff’s KV Trade
Name in the pharmaceutical field for over 50 years has established a strong association between
Plaintiff and the KV Trade Name in the minds of customers and the general public.
25. Without Plaintiff’s permission, Defendant has adopted and is continuing to use
the trade name “KVK-TECH” in the same field of business in which Plaintiff uses the KV Trade
Name.
26. Without Plaintiff’s permission, Defendant has adopted and is continuing to use
the KVK trademark on its pharmaceutical products, and is advertising and promoting to the
general public its goods under the KVK trademark.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 6 of 22
- 6 -
23235232\V-2
27. Upon information and belief, Defendant has sold, advertised, transported and
distributed, or caused to be distributed, directly or indirectly, its pharmaceutical products bearing
the KVK trademark in interstate commerce, including to customers located in Missouri.
Defendant represents on its web site that its products are available throughout the United States.
28. As a direct consequence of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff’s customers, potential
customers, and the general public have been and are likely to continue to be mistaken, deceived
or confused into believing that Defendant’s products were made by, licensed by, sponsored by,
endorsed by, approved by, authorized by, or otherwise affiliated with Plaintiff.
29. Upon information and belief, Defendant adopted and is currently using the KVK
trademark and the trade name “KVK-TECH” with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights and with
the intent to deceive, mislead and confuse customers and the public into believing that KV is the
source of Defendant’s pharmaceutical products, or that Defendant’s pharmaceutical products are
sponsored by, endorsed by, licensed by, or affiliated with KV so as to enable Defendant to take
advantage of Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name and the substantial fame, reputation and goodwill
enjoyed by Plaintiff in connection with Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name.
30. Defendant’s use of the KVK trademark in connection with Defendant’s
pharmaceutical products constitutes unfair competition and false representation as to source in
violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
31. Defendant’s use of the trade name “KVK-TECH” constitutes unfair competition
and false representation as to source in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 7 of 22
- 7 -
23235232\V-2
32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts and practices,
Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damage to its business, reputation and
goodwill, for which Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and damages.
COUNT II - UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER MISSOURI LAW
33. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 32 above, as if fully set forth
herein.
34. Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name has acquired a secondary meaning and significance
that serves to identify Plaintiff and distinguish Plaintiff’s products from those of others.
35. Defendant has unfairly used a simulation of Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name with
fraudulent intent and to the prejudice of Plaintiff’s interests.
36. Defendant’s actions are likely to cause confusion as to the source of Defendant’s
goods and are likely to lead the public to believe that Defendant and/or Defendant’s
pharmaceutical products are in some way connected with Plaintiff.
37. Defendant’s actions constitute intentional and willful unfair methods of
competition, and palming off in violation of the common law of Missouri.
38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair competitive acts in
contravention of Missouri common law, Plaintiff has been injured and damaged, and is entitled
to injunctive relief and to recover actual damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
this litigation.
COUNT III - VIOLATION OF MISSOURI DILUTION STATUTE (§ 417.061(1))
39. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 38 above, as if set forth fully
herein.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 8 of 22
- 8 -
23235232\V-2
40. As a result of the sales, advertising, promotion, and distribution referenced herein,
Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name is a distinctive trade name in the State of Missouri.
41. Defendant’s unauthorized use of the KVK trademark and the “KVK-TECH” trade
name has caused and is likely to continue to cause injury to Plaintiff’s business reputation in the
State of Missouri pursuant to § 417.061(1).
42. Defendant’s unauthorized use of the KVK trademark and the “KVK-TECH” trade
name has caused dilution of the distinctive quality of Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name and is likely to
continue to cause dilution of the distinctive quality of Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name in the State of
Missouri.
43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been injured
and damaged, and is entitled to injunctive relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment in its favor and grant the
following relief:
A. An injunction enjoining Defendant and its officers, directors, employees,
subsidiaries or affiliates from using the trademark KVK, the trade name KVK-TECH, or any
other mark, logo, trade name, business name, or other indication of source that is confusingly
similar to Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name and to change their corporate name and website name to
ensure that it is not confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name;
B. An injunction enjoining Defendant from selling, advertising or promoting any of
its products that infringe and/or dilute Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name;
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 9 of 22
- 9 -
23235232\V-2
C. That Plaintiff be awarded its actual damages and lost profits in an amount to be
proven at trial;
D. That Defendant be required to account for any profits attributable to their
infringing acts;
E. That Plaintiff be awarded the greater of three times Defendant’s profits and three
times any damages sustained by Plaintiff, and prejudgment interest;
F. That punitive damages be awarded to Plaintiff;
G. That all products, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, letterhead
and advertisements in the possession of Defendant bearing any word, term, name, symbol,
device, combination thereof, designation, description, or representation that is found in violation
of the Lanham Act, or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation thereof, and all
other means of making the same, shall be delivered up by Defendant and destroyed;
H. That pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, Defendant file and serve a report under oath
within thirty days of the issuance of injunctive relief indicating the manner in which it has
complied with any injunctive relief ordered by the Court;
I. That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees in prosecuting this action;
and
J. That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief which the Court deems just
and proper.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 10 of 22
- 10 -
23235232\V-2
Respectfully submitted,
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
BY_______/s/ Stephen H. Rovak______________
Stephen H. Rovak - 4218
Justine N. Margolis - 533404
One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3000
St. Louis, MO 63102-2741
(314) 241-1800
(314) 259-5959 (fax)
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
Bassam N. Ibrahim (pro hac to be filed)
S. Lloyd Smith (pro hac to be filed)
Bryce J. Maynard (pro hac to be filed)
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2756
703-836-6620
703-836-2021 (fax)
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
Constance Huttner (pro hac to be filed)
One Chase Manhattan Plaza, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10005
(212) 440-4426
(212) 440-4401 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff KV Pharmaceutical
Company
November 20, 2007
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 11 of 22
Exhibit B
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 12 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KV PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
vs. )
)
KVD PHARMA, INC., )
Serve at: 131 Chambers Brook Rd. )
Somerville, NJ 08876 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
This is an action for trade name infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham
Act, unfair competition under Missouri common law, and dilution under Missouri statutory law.
Plaintiff KV Pharmaceutical Company (“Plaintiff” or “KV”) is seeking a permanent injunction,
damages, profits, treble damages or profits, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Plaintiff, appearing
through its undersigned counsel, alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business at 2503
South Hanley Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63144-2555. Plaintiff is incorporated under the name
“K-V Pharmaceutical Company” but uses the trade name “KV Pharmaceutical Company.”
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant KVD Pharma, Inc. (“Defendant” or
“KVD”) is a New Jersey Corporation with its principal place of business at 131 Chambers Brook
Rd., Somerville, New Jersey 08876.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 13 of 22
- 2 -
23227799\V-1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This is a claim for damages and injunctive relief for unfair competition under the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), et seq., for unfair competition under Missouri common law,
and for dilution under the Missouri Dilution Statute, Mo. Stat. §417.061(1).
4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint which
arise under the statutory and common law of the State of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), since the state law claims are so related to the federal claims
that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of
operative facts.
6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant
transacts business within this judicial district, and the acts complained of herein that have caused
and are continuing to cause injury to Plaintiff have occurred and are continuing to occur within
this judicial district.
PLAINTIFF’S DISTINCTIVE KV TRADE NAME
7. KV is a recognized leader in the manufacture and sale of generic and branded
pharmaceuticals and the development of drug delivery technologies. KV markets and distributes
its product lines through its three subsidiary companies: Ther-Rx Corporation (branded
pharmaceuticals), ETHEX Corporation (generic pharmaceuticals), and Particle Dynamics, Inc.
(drug delivery technologies).
8. KV was founded in 1942 and has used the distinctive trade name “KV
Pharmaceutical” (the “KV Trade Name”) to identify itself in commerce for over 50 years.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 14 of 22
- 3 -
23227799\V-1
9. KV was founded in 1942 in St. Louis, Missouri as a contract researcher and
manufacturer for major pharmaceutical companies. In the early 1950s, KV began developing
and patenting drug delivery technologies such as extended-release and coating technologies. In
the 1970s, KV enhanced its business by developing raw materials for the pharmaceutical,
nutritional, and personal markets. KV began producing generic drugs in the early 1990s. In
1999, KV established its subsidiary Ther-Rx Corporation to market branded pharmaceutical
products manufactured by KV.
10. KV is today a full-fledged pharmaceutical company which obtains over 90% of its
revenues from the sale of pharmaceutical products.
11. KV is widely regarded as one of the best-run and most admired small companies
in America. In 2004, KV was listed in Forbes Magazine’s list of “America’s 200 Best Small
Companies.” KV uses the ticker symbols “KVA” and “KVB” to identify its two classes of
publicly traded stock.
12. KV’s revenues have increased every year for twelve straight years and have
doubled over the last five years. In fiscal year 2007, Plaintiff’s unaudited gross revenues from
the sale of pharmaceutical products were approximately $424.5 million. Plaintiff’s total gross
revenues from fiscal years 2001-2007 are over $1.8 billion.
13. Plaintiff, through its subsidiaries ETHEX and Ther-Rx, has widely advertised
itself as a manufacturer and seller of pharmaceutical products and drug delivery technologies.
14. Plaintiff prominently displays the KV Trade Name on its web site, on its
letterhead, in press releases, on its employees’ business cards, on the packaging and inserts for
ETHEX and Ther-Rx products, and on promotional and marketing material.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 15 of 22
- 4 -
23227799\V-1
15. Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name serves as a unique identifier of Plaintiff’s products
among the general public, including consumers in the pharmaceuticals market, and serves to
distinguish Plaintiff’s products from its competitors’ products.
16. As a result of Plaintiff’s longtime use, substantial sales, and significant
promotional efforts for Plaintiff’s pharmaceutical products, Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name has
become well known to the pharmaceutical industry and the general public throughout the United
States.
17. Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name has achieved a secondary meaning in the market place
among pharmaceutical customers and the general public identifying Plaintiff as the sole source
of its goods. Customers and members of the general public throughout the United States have
come to recognize the KV Trade Name and to associate the KV Trade Name exclusively with
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s goods. Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name is a business asset of substantial value
to Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT’S USE OF KVD AS A TRADE NAME AND TRADEMARK
18. Upon information and belief, Defendant is in the business of manufacturing and
selling pharmaceuticals.
19. Defendant uses the trade name “KVD Pharma.” Upon information and belief,
Defendant began using this trade name no earlier than 2004, long after Plaintiff’s first use of the
KV Trade Name.
20. Defendant promotes and sells its pharmaceutical products under the trademark
KVD. Upon information and belief, Defendant began commercially using this trademark no
earlier than 2006, long after Plaintiff’s first use of the KV Trade Name. Plaintiff became aware
of Defendant’s use of KVD thereafter.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 16 of 22
- 5 -
23227799\V-1
21. Defendant’s pharmaceutical products compete directly in the same market with
Plaintiff’s pharmaceutical products and are marketed and sold to the same consumers as
Plaintiff’s pharmaceutical products.
22. Defendant is actively promoting its pharmaceutical products on the Internet using
the URL address www.kvdpharma.com. Plaintiff’s URL address is
www.kvpharmaceutical.com.
COUNT I - UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
23. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 22 above, as if fully set forth
herein.
24. Plaintiff’s continuous and substantially exclusive use of Plaintiff’s KV Trade
Name in the pharmaceutical field for over 50 years has established a strong association between
Plaintiff and the KV Trade Name in the minds of customers and the general public.
25. Without Plaintiff’s permission, Defendant has adopted and is continuing to use
the trade name “KVD Pharma” in the same field of business in which Plaintiff uses the KV
Trade Name.
26. Without Plaintiff’s permission, Defendant has adopted and is continuing to use
the KVD trademark on its pharmaceutical products, and is advertising and promoting to the
general public its goods under the KVD trademark.
27. Upon information and belief, Defendant has sold, advertised, transported and
distributed, or caused to be distributed, directly or indirectly, its pharmaceutical products bearing
the KVD trademark in interstate commerce, including to customers located in Missouri.
28. As a direct consequence of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff’s customers, potential
customers, and the general public have been and are likely to continue to be mistaken, deceived
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 17 of 22
- 6 -
23227799\V-1
or confused into believing that Defendant’s products were made by, licensed by, sponsored by,
endorsed by, approved by, authorized by, or otherwise affiliated with Plaintiff.
29. Upon information and belief, Defendant adopted and is currently using the KVD
trademark and the trade name “KVD Pharma” with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights and with
the intent to deceive, mislead and confuse customers and the public into believing that KV is the
source of Defendant’s pharmaceutical products, or that Defendant’s pharmaceutical products are
sponsored by, endorsed by, licensed by, or affiliated with KV so as to enable Defendant to take
advantage of Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name and the substantial fame, reputation and goodwill
enjoyed by Plaintiff in connection with Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name.
30. Defendant’s use of the KVD trademark in connection with Defendant’s
pharmaceutical products constitutes unfair competition and false representation as to source in
violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
31. Defendant’s use of the trade name “KVD Pharma” constitutes unfair competition
and false representation as to source in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts and practices,
Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damage to its business, reputation and
goodwill, for which Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and damages.
COUNT II - UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER MISSOURI LAW
33. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 32 above, as if fully set forth
herein.
34. Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name has acquired a secondary meaning and significance
that serves to identify Plaintiff and distinguish Plaintiff’s products from those of others.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 18 of 22
- 7 -
23227799\V-1
35. Defendant has unfairly used a simulation of Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name with
fraudulent intent and to the prejudice of Plaintiff’s interests.
36. Defendant’s actions are likely to cause confusion as to the source of Defendant’s
goods and are likely to lead the public to believe that Defendant and/or Defendant’s
pharmaceutical products are in some way connected with Plaintiff.
37. Defendant’s actions constitute intentional and willful unfair methods of
competition, and palming off in violation of the common law of Missouri.
38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair competitive acts in
contravention of Missouri common law, Plaintiff has been injured and damaged, and is entitled
to injunctive relief and to recover actual damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
this litigation.
COUNT III - VIOLATION OF MISSOURI DILUTION STATUTE (§417.061(1))
39. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 38 above, as if set forth fully
herein.
40. As a result of the sales, advertising, promotion, and distribution referenced herein,
Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name is a distinctive trade name in the State of Missouri.
41. Defendant’s unauthorized use of the KVD trademark and the “KVD Pharma”
trade name has caused injury to Plaintiff’s business reputation and is likely to continue to cause
injury to Plaintiff’s business reputation in the State of Missouri pursuant to § 417.061(1).
42. Defendant’s unauthorized use of the KVD trademark and the “KVD Pharma”
trade name has caused dilution of the distinctive quality of Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name and is
likely to continue to cause dilution of the distinctive quality of Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name in the
State of Missouri.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 19 of 22
- 8 -
23227799\V-1
43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been injured
and damaged, and is entitled to injunctive relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment in its favor and grant the
following relief:
A. An injunction enjoining Defendant and its officers, directors, employees,
subsidiaries or affiliates from using Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name or any other mark, logo, trade
name, business name, or other indication of source that is confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s KV
Trade Name and to change their corporate name and website name to ensure that it is not
confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name;
B. An injunction enjoining Defendant from selling, advertising or promoting any of
its products that infringe and/or dilute Plaintiff’s KV Trade Name;
C. That Plaintiff be awarded its actual damages and lost profits in an amount to be
proven at trial;
D. That Defendant be required to account for any profits attributable to their
infringing acts;
E. That Plaintiff be awarded the greater of three times Defendant’s profits and three
times any damages sustained by Plaintiff, and prejudgment interest;
F. That punitive damages be awarded to Plaintiff;
G. That all products, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, letterhead
and advertisements in the possession of Defendant bearing any word, term, name, symbol,
device, combination thereof, designation, description, or representation that is found in violation
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 20 of 22
- 9 -
23227799\V-1
of the Lanham Act, or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation thereof, and all
other means of making the same, shall be delivered up by Defendant and destroyed;
H. That pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, Defendant file and serve a report under oath
within thirty days of the issuance of injunctive relief indicating the manner in which it has
complied with any injunctive relief ordered by the Court;
I. That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees in prosecuting this action;
and
J. That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief which the Court deems just
and proper.
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 21 of 22
- 10 -
23227799\V-1
Respectfully submitted,
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
By ________/s/ Stephen H. Rovak____________________
Stephen H. Rovak - 4218
Justine N. Margolis - 533404
One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3000
St. Louis, MO 63102-2741
(314) 241-1800
(314) 259-5959 (fax)
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
Bassam N. Ibrahim (pro hac admission to be filed)
S. Lloyd Smith (pro hac admission to be filed)
Bryce J. Maynard (pro hac admission to be filed)
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2756
703-836-6620
703-836-2021 (fax)
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
Constance Huttner (pro hac admission to be filed)
One Chase Manhattan Plaza, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10005
(212) 440-4426
(212) 440-4401 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff KV Pharmaceutical Company
Dated: August 2, 2007
Case 1:08-cv-00338-JJF Document 75-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 22 of 22
