Promotion in Motion Inc. v. Ferrara Candy Company et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment -

D. Del.January 6, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PROMOTION IN MOTION, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 15-212 RGA ) FERRARA CANDY COMPANY and ) FERRARA CANDY COMPANY HOLDINGS, ) INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants Ferrara Candy Company and Ferrara Candy Company Holdings, Inc. (collectively “Ferrara”) hereby move pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment regarding the third and fourth claims for relief in the Second Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Promotion in Motion, Inc. (“PIM”) alleging Lanham Act trade dress infringement and federal unfair competition on the ground that Plaintiff has presented no evidence of injury or likelihood of confusion, which are necessary elements for the claims. Because there is no federal question jurisdiction without these claims, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remaining state law claims and should dismiss those claims. To the extent the Court determines to exercise jurisdiction over PIM’s state law claims, Ferrara moves for summary judgment on all of PIM’s state law claims regarding Ferrara’s sour-sanded products, Black Forest CIS Fruit Snacks, and Market Pantry Fruit Snacks on the grounds that the evidence of record shows that these products were independently created and did not result from any misuse of confidential information of Plaintiff. Case 1:15-cv-00212-RGA Document 109 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1642 2 These grounds are discussed more fully in the accompanying Opening Brief of Ferrara in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, filed contemporaneously and incorporated herein by reference. OF COUNSEL: Steven P. Hollman SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20006-6801 (202) 747-3912 shollman@sheppardmullin.com Rebecca C. Mandel James J. Petrila Elizabeth Hagerty HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 (202) 637-5600 rebecca.mandel@hoganlovells.com jim.petrila@hoganlovells.com marc.marinaccio@hoganlovells.com elizabeth.hagerty@hoganlovells.com Dated: January 6, 2017 YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP /s/ Pilar G. Kraman Adam W. Poff (No. 3990) Pilar G. Kraman (No. 5199) Rodney Square 1000 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 571-6600 apoff@ycst.com pkraman@ycst.com Attorneys for Defendants Case 1:15-cv-00212-RGA Document 109 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1643 01:16961040.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Pilar G. Kraman, Esquire, hereby certify that on January 6, 2017, I caused to be electronically filed a copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification that such filing is available for viewing and downloading to the following counsel of record: Neal C. Belgam, Esquire Eve H. Ormerod, Esquire SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP The Corporate Plaza 800 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, DE 19899 nbelgam@skjlaw.com eormerod@skjlaw.com Jonathan Z. King, Esquire Richard S. Mandel, Esquire Ryan A. Ghiselli, Esquire COWAN, LEIBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C. 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6799 jzk@cll.com rsm@cll.com ryg@cll.com Ronald W. Meister, Esquire COWAN LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C. 114 W. 47th Street New York, NY 10036-1525 rwm@cll.com Attorneys for Promotion in Motion Inc. I further certify that on January 6, 2017, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by e-mail on the above-listed counsel. Case 1:15-cv-00212-RGA Document 109 Filed 01/06/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1644 01:16961040.1 YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP /s/Pilar g. Kraman Adam W. Poff (No. 3990) Pilar G. Kraman (No. 5199) Rodney Square 1000 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 apoff@ycst.com pkraman@ycst.com Attorneys for Defendants Case 1:15-cv-00212-RGA Document 109 Filed 01/06/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1645 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PROMOTION IN MOTION, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 15-212 RGA ) FERRARA CANDY COMPANY and ) FERRARA CANDY COMPANY HOLDINGS, ) INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER At Wilmington this __ day of _________, 2017, having considered the Motion of Defendants Ferrara Candy Company and Ferrara Candy Company Holdings, Inc. (collectively “Ferrara”) for Summary Judgment, the opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 1. Ferrara’s Motion for Summary Judgment IS GRANTED; 2. Judgment is Entered in favor of Ferrara as to Promotion In Motion, Inc.’s Third and Fourth Claims for Relief; and 3. [This case is DISMISSED for lack of federal jurisdiction.] or 4. [Judgment Is Entered in favor of Ferrara as to Promotion In Motion, Inc.’s First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Claims for Relief as to Ferrara’s accused sour-sanded products, Black Forest CIS Fruit Snacks, and Market Pantry Fruit Snacks.] ______________________________ The Honorable Richard G. Andrews Case 1:15-cv-00212-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1646