Shark Tank Pretrial

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Fort Lauderdale Division

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-61678-COHN-SELTZER

The CELLER LAW ORGANIZATION,

INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a/ THE

CELLER ORGANIZATION, CELLER

LAW, P.A., a Florida Professional

Association, and CELLER

ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Florida

corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SONY PICTURES TELEVISION INC., a

foreign corporation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

JOINT PRETRIAL

STIPULATION

SONY PICTURES TELEVISION INC., a

foreign corporation,

Counter-Claimant,

v.

The CELLER LAW ORGANIZATION,

INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a/ THE

CELLER ORGANIZATION, CELLER

LAW, P.A., a Florida Professional

Association, CELLER ENTERTAINMENT,

INC., a Florida corporation, and BOBBIE

CELLER, an individual,

Counter-Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case 0:13-cv-61678-JIC Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 1 of 51


Page 2 of 51

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, The CELLER LAW ORGANIZATION, INC. d/b/a THE

CELLER ORGANIZATION, CELLER LAW, P.A., CELLER ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and

BOBBIE CELLER (collectively, “Celler”) (The Celler Law Organization, Inc. d/b/a Celler

Organization, Celler Law, P.A. and Celler Entertainment, Inc. shall sometimes be referred to

collectively herein as “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant/Counter-Claimant, SONY PICTURES

TELEVISION INC. (“SPT” or “Defendant”) (“Celler” and “SPT” shall sometimes be referred to

collectively herein as the “Parties”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, and

pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order [ECF No. 20] and S.D. of Fla. L.R. 16.1(e), hereby file

this Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation:

1. SHORT CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

a. Plaintiffs’ Statement

In early 2013, Plaintiffs recognized an opportunity to further market Celler Law, P.A. and

increase its market share through a speaking tour of personalities known for their business success.

Plaintiffs decided to engage successful business personalities in order to attract as broad a base of

attendees as possible to the speaking tour.

The Celler parties initially contracted four individuals for purposes of conducting a live

tour known as “Shark Tour and Entrepreneur Expo Presented by Bobbie Celler” (“Shark Tour”).

Specifically, in mid June of 2013, Celler Parties contracted with Daymond John, Barbara

Corcoran, Robert Herjavec, and Kevin Harrington (collectively referred to as the “Sharks”) for

their live appearances at the Shark Tour scheduled to take place on November 2, 2013, at the

Orlando Convention Center. Daymond John, Barbara Corcoran, and Robert Herjavec are current

members of the A.B.C. Television Show Shark Tank. Kevin Harrington was a former participant



Page 3 of 51

on the show. However, a few weeks later, Daymond John and Robert Herjavec, without warning,

due to pressure from Sony, advised that they would not appear at Shark Tour.

The Celler Parties filed suit against Sony on or about July 25, 2013, alleging that Sony had

tortiously interfered with The Celler Parties’ respective business and/or contractual relationships

with the Sharks, thereby causing Plaintiff to incur damages. Shortly thereafter, Barbara Corcoran

also cancelled. In it’s Answer, Sony set forth Four Affirmative Defenses alleging: that its

communications with the Sharks were privileged and therefore justified; that The Celler Parties

cannot seek damages for contracts terminable at will; that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the

doctrine of unclean hands as well as estoppel due to the alleged usage of trademarks and

intellectual property.

Also in response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Sony filed a six-count Counterclaim1

against The Celler Parties based upon its registered standard character service mark SHARK

TANK, and its purported ownership of an unregistered logo and unregistered Shark Tank Trade

Dress, which Sony claims to use in connection with a website and a reality television series

depicting people making requests for capital investments into their business. Sony asserts that its

unregistered logo consists of “the SHARK TANK mark written in all-capital letters and presented

in blue and black colors.” Sony contends that its unregistered trade dress consists of “a distinctive

blue and black color theme, the words SHARK TANK written in all-capital letters on the upper

left-had portion of the screen, menu options presented horizontally across the top of the screen in

gray, a depiction of the characters in the show immediately below the masthead, and depiction of

1 The various counts included in the Counterclaim are for: federal trademark infringement;

federal false designation and unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, Florida trademark

dilution, Florida unfair competition, and common law trademark infringement and unfair

competition. ECF No. 32.



Page 4 of 51

water in the background of the page,” which are displayed on a website located at

http://abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank. Sony alleges that The Celler Parties are infringing its

SHARK TANK mark, the Shark Tank logo, and the Shark Tank Trade Dress through the

advertisement and marketing of The Celler Parties’ SHARK TOUR & Entrepreneur Expo.

In defending against the Counterclaim, The Celler Parties are asserting that Sony’s

Counterclaim is a “shotgun” pleading presented in contravention of the Rules of Civil Procedure

because each Count incorporates, every prior allegation and claim set forth earlier in the

Counterclaim, which renders those Counts subject to dismissal. The Celler Parties also assert that

Sony’s Counterclaim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands because Sony tortiously interfered

with The Celler Parties’ business relationships and efforts to complete the planning and

presentation of the Shark Tour & Entrepreneur Expo.

If Sony’s claims are not entirely barred or otherwise subject to dismissal, The Celler Parties

nevertheless contend that Sony fails to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. 1114 for infringement of its

Shark Tank logo and its Shark Tank trade dress because neither are registered on the USPTO’s

Principal Register. Additionally, The Celler Parties assert that the trade dress Sony is seeking to

enforce is not protectable. The Celler Parties further contend that their use of the SHARK TOUR

mark is in its primary, descriptive sense to describe The Celler Parties’ services, not Sony’s

television show.

The Celler Parties also contend that, even if Sony were to meet its burden to prove its

claims, Sony cannot recover it damages or The Celler Parties profits, if any, because Sony failed to

give notice of its registered rights in the SHARK TANK mark, or otherwise comply with 15

U.S.C. § 1111, by displaying with the words "Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office" or

"Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off." or the letter R enclosed within a circle with its SHARK TANK mark,



Page 5 of 51

and The Celler Parties had no actual knowledge of Sony’s registration of the SHARK TANK mark

with the USPTO. Therefore, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1111, Sony may not receive an award of any

profits or damages

The Celler Parties contend that, even if Sony could recover damages in this action, Sony is

not entitled to any award of enhanced damages because The Celler Parties actions were not willful,

intentional or deliberate. Finally, The Celler Parties assert that, should Sony prevail on its

Lanham Act Counterclaims, Sony is not entitled to attorneys’ fees or costs under Section 35 of the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117, because its claims, allegations and facts do not set forth an

exceptional case.

b. Defendant’s Statement

This litigation was filed by Plaintiffs after Defendant learned of Plaintiffs’ misuse and

exploitation of Defendant’s valuable trademark, trade dress and other intellectual property relating

to the hit television show Shark Tank in an effort to launch a copycat “Shark Tour” live event.

Plaintiffs repeatedly used SPT’s registered SHARK TANK trademark and the distinctive Shark

Tank logo and trade dress in promoting Plaintiffs’ proposed Shark Tour, and allege that they

entered into contracts with some of the talent (called “Sharks”) who appear or appeared on the

Shark Tank show to appear at the live Shark Tour event, all to create the appearance of an

affiliation between Plaintiffs’ event and SPT’s Shark Tank show. When the Sharks learned how

Plaintiffs were using the intellectual property of the Shark Tank show, some of them informed

Plaintiffs that they would not be appearing on the Shark Tour and returned their deposits.

Plaintiffs then canceled their proposed Shark Tour (having not sold a single ticket). Instead,

before Defendants could initiate a lawsuit against Plaintiffs for infringing their intellectual



Page 6 of 51

property, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant in Broward County Circuit Court and Defendant

promptly removed the case to this Court and filed its Counterclaims.

This lawsuit was filed preemptively by Plaintiffs (in advance of the deadline on their threat

to Defendant to “partner up or be sued”) to try to head off federal claims for trademark and trade

dress infringement. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint asserts one count against Defendant for

Tortious Interference. The evidence at trial will confirm that Defendant did not wrongfully

interfere with Plaintiffs’ purported business or contractual relationships and that any

communications it had with regard to the subject of Plaintiffs were privileged and justifiable given

Plaintiffs’ intentional efforts to hijack Defendant’s well known brand, including its registered

trademark and distinctive logo and trade dress. Moreover, SPT will show that any actions it did

take were protected by its privileged right to compete and to protect its own financial and property

interests under Florida law. In any event, the evidence will make clear that Celler cannot

demonstrate any damages to a reasonable certainty, and that he is barred from seeking or obtaining

his claimed lost profit damages.

Defendant filed six Counterclaims against Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendant Bobbie Celler

for Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition Under

Federal Law, Federal Trademark Dilution, Trademark Dilution Under Florida Law, Unfair

Competition Under Florida Law, and Common Law Infringement and Unfair Competition.

Defendant’s Counterclaims arise from Plaintiffs’ deliberate theft of intellectual property that

Defendant spent years and many millions of dollars developing and exploiting in connection with

its Shark Tank show. Defendant not only obtained a federal registration for its SHARK TANK

mark, but it also spent (and continues to spend) significant time and effort strengthening that mark

– along with the distinctive logo and trade dress it developed. Moreover, Defendant had



Page 7 of 51

participated in discussions with ABC and the Sharks about doing their own live Shark Tank tour to

further promote their brand – something Plaintiffs’ efforts attempted to derail, dilute, or otherwise

capture.

Defendant seeks primarily injunctive relief on its Counterclaims, and will ask the Court to

also award appropriate attorneys’ fees at the conclusion of the case.

2. BASIS OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION

The Parties agree that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367, and 1338.

Defendant states that the Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116,

1121, and 1125(a). SPT’s Counterclaims assert state statutory and common law claims for

common law unfair competition, trademark infringement, dilution, and deceptive and unfair trade

practices which are joined with substantial and related claims under the federal trademark laws,

and this Court has jurisdiction as to such claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b).

3. PLEADINGS RAISING THE ISSUES

a. The Celler Parties’ Amended Complaint [ECF NO. 23];

b. Defendant Sony Pictures Television Inc.’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and

Counterclaims [ECF NO. 32]; and

c. The Celler Parties’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendant’s Counterclaim

[ECF NO. 41].

4. LIST OF ALL UNDISPOSED OF MOTIONS OR OTHER MATTERS

REQUIRING ACTION BY THE COURT

a. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Preclude Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff

Sony Pictures Television from Presenting Evidence, Testimony or Argument as to any Definition



Page 8 of 51

or Description of its Trade Dress Other than the Definition It Alleged in the Counterclaim [ECF

NO. 51];

b. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Exclude the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff

Sony Pictures Television from Presenting Evidence, Testimony or Argument as to any Allegedly

Infringing Conduct that is not the Subject Matter of this Action [ECF NO. 52];

c. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Exclude the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff

Sony Pictures Television from Presenting Evidence, Testimony or Argument Regarding any

Purported Marketplace Examples of Television Shows and Tours that do not Contain a Shark Tank

or Shark Tour Trademark [ECF NO. 53];

d. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Exclude the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff

Sony Pictures Television from Presenting Evidence, Opinion or Argument in Violation of the

Rules Relating to Expert Opinion and this Court’s Scheduling Order [ECF NO. 54];

e. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Strike Previously Undisclosed Documents

and Other Exhibits from Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Sony Pictures Television’s Exhibit List and

Exclude their Use at Trial [ECF NO. 55];

f. The Celler Parties’ Motion In Limine to Strike Previously Undisclosed Witnesses

from Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Sony Pictures Television’s Witness List and Exclude Their

Testimony at Trial [ECF NO. 57];

g. Defendant/Counter-Claimant Sony Pictures Television Inc.’s Motion In Limine to

Exclude Evidence Regarding Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants’ Purported Lost Profit Damages and

Incorporated Memorandum of Law [ECF NO. 49];



Page 9 of 51

h. Defendant/Counter-Claimant Sony Pictures Television Inc.’s Motion In Limine to

Exclude Evidence Regarding Irrelevant Alleged Third-Party Uses of “Shark” and Incorporated

Memorandum of Law [ECF NO. 50];

i. Defendant/Counter-Claimant Sony Pictures Television, Inc.’s Cross Motion In

Limine to Strike Plaintiffs’ Previously Undisclosed Documents and Other Exhibits from Plaintiffs’

Exhibit List and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [ECF NO. 59];

j. Joint Stipulation for Entry of Agreed Protective Order [ECH NO. 60]; and

k. Joint Motion for Permission to Bring Electronic Equipment into the Courthouse

During the Trial Period [ECF NO. 62].

5. CONCISE STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS WHICH WILL

REQUIRE NO PROOF AT TRIAL

General Facts1

a. Bobbie Celler is a personal injury attorney licensed in Florida, with his principal

places of business in Coral Springs and Boca Raton, Florida;

b. The Celler Law Organization, d/b/a The Celler Organization, now known as The

Celler Organization, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located in

Boca Raton, Florida;

c. The Celler Organization was incorporated on February 19, 2013;

d. Celler Law, P.A., is a Florida Professional Association, with its principal place of

business located in Boca Raton, Florida;

e. Celler Entertainment, Inc., is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of

business located in Boca Raton, Florida;

1

The Parties were unable to reach agreement as to some of the facts listed herein, although a

number of them are undisputed. Both parties reserve the right to object to the facts listed herein.



Page 10 of 51

f. Celler Entertainment, Inc. was incorporated on April 1, 2013;

g. Bobbie Celler is the founder, president and Chief Executive Officer of The Celler

Organization, Inc. and is its registered agent;

h. Bobbie Celler is the founder, director and registered agent for Celler Law, P.A.;

i. Bobbie Celler is the founder and registered agent for Celler Entertainment, Inc.;

j. SPT is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Culver City,

California;

k. Daymond John, Barbara Corcoran, Robert Herjavec and Kevin Harrington

(collectively, the “Sharks”) are (John, Corcoran and Herjavec) or were (Harrington) entrepreneur

cast members of the Shark Tank show;

l. The Shark Tank show features business pitches from aspiring entrepreneurs to a

panel of potential investors who are called the “Sharks” on the show;

m. SPT filed an intent-to-use trademark application for SHARK TANK in the United

States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on September 18, 2008 under Section 1(b) of the

Lanham Act;

n. In response to inquiry by the PTO, SPT stated that the SHARK TANK mark had no

significance in the relevant trade or industry or as applied to entertainment services in the nature of

an ongoing reality television series, nor did it have any geographical significance;

o. Celler is in no way affiliated with the Shark Tank show, SPT or ABC;

p. The Shark Tour was scheduled to take place on November 2, 2013 at the Orange

County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida;

q. Bobbie Celler was aware of the television show Shark Tank prior to Celler’s

creation of the Shark Tour mark and event;



Page 11 of 51

r. The Shark Tour website was launched on or about July 16, 2013;

s. On July 3, 2013, pursuant to Section 1(b) of the Lanham Act, The Celler

Organization submitted a trademark application for registration of SHARK TOUR (serial no.

86001456) seeking to register SHARK TOUR in standard characters for use in connection with the

following services: Arranging, organizing, conducting, and hosting social entertainment events;

Education services, namely, providing live and on-line classes, courses, seminars, videos, special

events and workshops in the field of business and entrepreneurship in International Class 41;

t. On August 2, 2013, counsel for SPT sent a letter to Bobbie Celler and The Celler

Organization demanding that they cease from using, and take down from the Shark Tour website

any of SPT’s intellectual property and that they withdraw the application for registration of

SHARK TOUR;

u. The Celler Parties have not conducted, hosted or presented any event under the

SHARK TOUR mark;

v. Neither SPT nor ABC has yet conducted, hosted or presented a live exposition or

touring version of the Shark Tank show

w. Celler has not produced and distributed an ongoing reality television series.

ISSUES OF FACT REMAINING TO BE LITIGATED AT TRIAL2

Disputed Facts that the Celler Parties intend to litigate at trial

a) Whether the Celler Parties, during the time period of early June through late July, 2013,

were organizing an event known as “Shark Tour and Entrepreneur Expo Presented by

Bobbie Celler” (“Shark Tour”).

2 By jointly signing this document, the Parties do not concede that all facts contained herein are

appropriate to be considered at the trial, and do not waive any objections or any other rights they

have.



Page 12 of 51

b) Whether the Celler Parties intended for The Shark Tour to take place on November 2,

2013, at the Orlando Convention Center.

c) Whether the Celler Parties intended to conduct, host and present a live exposition or

touring event featuring the presentation of business concepts to some of the Sharks from

the Shark Tank show;

d) Whether the Celler Parties contracted with Daymond John on or about June 17, 2013 for

his appearance at Shark Tour.

e) Whether the Celler Parties contracted with Barbara Corcoran on or about June 17, 2013 for

her appearance at the Shark Tour.

f) Whether the Celler Parties contracted with Kevin Harrington on or about June 26, 2013 for

his appearance at the Shark Tour.

g) Whether the Celler Parties contracted with Robert Herjavec on or about June 20, 2013 for

his appearance at the Shark Tour.

h) Whether Bobbie Celler visited Sony’s production studios in Las Angeles, CA, on or around

July 10, 2013.

i) Whether during this visit, Bobbie Celler met with and interviewed Barbara Corcoran and

Robert Herjavec while at Sony’s Production Studios for purposes of creating a promotional

video for the Shark Tour.

j) Whether between July 21-24, 2013, Sony visited the Shark Tour website seventeen (17)

times.

k) Whether Sony informed the Sharks that it believed Celler was improperly using its

intellectual property regarding the show Shark Tank.



Page 13 of 51

l) Whether on or about July 24, 2013, representatives of Daymond John and Robert Herjavec,

informed The Celler Parties the two sharks would not participate in Shark Tour due to the

actions of Sony.

m) Whether on or about August 8, 2013, a representative of Barbara Corcoran informed The

Celler Parties that she would not be participating in Shark Tour due to a scheduling

conflict.

n) Whether the Celler Parties were developing a website, at the domain name

sharktour2013.com, which was to be a promotional tool and the an outlet through which

tickets would have beenbe sold for Shark Tour and the Celler Parties when the ticket sale

effort was to be activated.;

o) Whether, as a result of the engaged Sharks cancelling their contracts, the Celler Parties

cancelled the Shark Tour in 2013, and never offered for sale nor sold any tickets.;

p) Whether the Orlando Convention Center had been leased for the November 2, 2013 Shark

Tour event. Celler incurred the expnse even though the event was cancelled. Celler also

incurred other out of pocket expenses in the Shark Tour endeavor.

q) Whether Shark Tour was cancelled after the Sharks informed Celler they would not be

participating in Shark Tour.

r) Whether or not Sony unjustifiably interfered with the Sharks participation in Shark Tour

s) Whether or not SPT unjustifiably interfered with the Sharks participation in Shark Tour;

t) Whether Sony does not have exclusive rights in John, Corcoran, Herjavec, or Harrington’s

name or likeness.

u) John, Corcoran and Herjavec are permitted to engage in employment outside the Shark

Tank television series.



Page 14 of 51

v) Whether SPT intends to conduct, host and present a live exposition or touring version of

the Shark Tank show;

w) Whether or not the Celler Parties suffered damages proximately caused by Sony

x) Whether SPT was granted a federal trademark registration for the standard character

SHARK TANK word mark on November 24, 2009 (reg. no. 3716584) for use in

connection with entertainment services in the nature of an ongoing reality television series,

involving presentation of business concepts; in International Class 41;

y) The SHARK TANK mark is used by the American Broadcasting Company (“ABC”)

through its televising of the Shark Tank television show and its production and display of a

website, located on the Internet at abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank, promoting the television

show;

z) SPT also promotes and advertises the Shark Tank show through a variety of means;

aa) Whether Sony does not have a trademark registration for the word “Shark” alone.

bb) Whether Sony is not the owner of any copyrighted photograph that has been displayed on

the website located at sharktour2013.com, and Sony has not asserted a copyright

infringement claim in this action.

cc) The SHARK TANK mark is used by the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) through

its televising of the SHARK TANK television show and its production and display of a

website, located on the Internet at abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank, promoting the television

show.

dd) Neither the SHARK TANK television nor ABC’s SHARK TANK website display the

words "Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office" or "Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off." or

the letter R enclosed within a circle with the SHARK TANK trademark.



Page 15 of 51

ee) Bobbie Celler is the creator and presenter of Shark Tour, which was promoted by Celler as

featuring some of the Sharks seen on the Shark Tank show;

ff) Whether Sony’s Shark Tank service mark describes the services SPT offers thereunder, or

any ingredient or characteristic thereof.;

gg) Whether the Shark Tank television or ABC’s SHARK TANK website display the words

"Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office" or "Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off." or the

letter R enclosed within a circle with the SHARK TANK trademark;

hh) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, logo, and trade dress have acquired secondary

meaning among the consuming public;

ii) Whether the Shark Tank logo and trade dress are non-functional;

jj) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, logo, and trade dress are distinctive;

kk) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK service mark is strong or weak.;

ll) Whether SPT popularized the term ‘Shark’ to refer to a successful entrepreneur.;

mm) Whether the term ‘shark’ was commonly used to describe tough entrepreneurs prior

to SPT’s incorporation of that term into its SHARK TANK mark.;

nn) Whether SPT has a USPTO registration for the logo consisting of the SHARK TANK mark

written in all-capital letters and presented in blue and black colors (the “Shark Tank

Logo”).;

oo) Whether SPT has a USPTO registration for the alleged Shark Tank trade dress.;

pp) Whether SPT authorized Celler to use the SHARK TANK mark, logo, and/or trade dress;

qq) Whether Bobbie Celler had actual notice and knowledge of SPT’s ownership and

registration of the SHARK TANK mark, logo, and trade dress prior to Celler’s promotion

of its Shark Tour;



Page 16 of 51

rr) Whether Celler’s use of the terms SHARK and TOUR has been in their primary,

descriptive sense to describe the Celler’s goods or services, not SPT’s.;

ss) The Celler Parties had a bona fide intention to use the SHARK TOUR service mark in

connection with selling tickets to, hosting, and presenting the Expo on November 2, 2013

and other future events.

tt) If Sony has any enforceable rights in the SHARK TANK service mark, whether purchasers

or prospective purchasers of The Celler Parties’ social entertainment services and/or

education services are likely to believe that: (1) any such services come from the same

source as SPT’s ongoing reality television series offered under the asserted mark; or (2)

any services offered by The Celler Parties are related to or associated with the source of

SPT’s ongoing reality television series offered under the asserted mark.;

uu) Whether the Shark Tour mark is similar to the SHARK TANK mark.;

vv) Whether the parties offer similar services under the SHARK TANK mark at issue.;

ww) Whether the parties use similar retail outlets to offer their services.;

xx) Whether the prospective purchasers of the parties’ respective services are similar.;

yy) Whether the parties use similar advertising media to market their services to consumers;

zz) Whether The Celler Parties intended to confuse consumers into believing the Tour came

from the same source as the Shark Tank television show.

aaa) Whether any consumers interested in purchasing tickets to The Celler Parties’ Expo

were actually confused as to whether it was sponsored, affiliated or approved by the same

entity that produces the Shark Tank television show.;



Page 17 of 51

bbb) If SPT has any enforceable service mark rights and if consumers are likely to

experience confusion, whether SPT has suffered any actual damages and, if so, the dollar

amount of such actual damages.;

ccc) If SPT has any enforceable service mark and if consumers are likely to experience

confusion, whether The Celler Parties earned any profit arising out of the mark at issue,

from the date that such became protectable to the presaent date. And, if The Celler Parties

are determined to have infringed SPT’s mark, logo or trade dress, the amount of such

profits that may be subject to disgorgement, if any, as a possible damages recovery.;

ddd) Whether or not The Celler Parties acted willfully

eee) Whether SPT produces and distributes television shows;

fff) Whether SPT is the producer and owner of the television show Shark Tank, featured on

ABC;

ggg) Whether Shark Tank premiered on ABC in August 2009, and is now in its fifth

season on ABC, running consistently during ABC’s prime time television programing

schedule;

hhh) The extent to which Shark Tank has been advertised and promoted since it

premiered five (5) years ago;

iii) Whether SPT has been using the SHARK TANK trademark continuously since August

2009 in the field of entertainment services involving the presentation and valuation of

business concepts;

jjj) Whether, as of 2012, the Shark Tank show averaged seven million viewers an episode, and

was the most watched program on Friday nights in the 18-49 year old demographic;



Page 18 of 51

kkk) Whether the Shark Tank show averaged over eight million viewers an episode in

2013;

lll) Whether, in 2012 and 2013, Shark Tank received Emmy nominations for Outstanding

Reality Program, in 2012 received a nomination for a Critics’ Choice Television Award for

Best Reality Series, and in 2013, received a nomination for a Producers Guild Award;

mmm) Whether the official Shark Tank show website, located at

abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank (“Shark Tank Website”), featured during the relevant time

period a distinctive trade dress, or “look and feel,” that included, among other things, a blue

and black color theme with varying shades of blue, the words SHARK TANK written in

all-capital letters on the upper left-hand portion of the screen and presented in blue and

black, menu options presented horizontally across the top of the screen in gray, the

SHARK TANK Logo (the SHARK TANK mark written in all capital letters with teeth

marks in the “K” of “TANK”), a depiction of the characters in the show immediately below

the masthead, a depiction of water in the background of the page, and a depiction of

circling sharks;

nnn) Whether elements of SPT’s trade dress appear on the Shark Tank show, and in

advertisements and promotional materials for the show;

ooo) Whether television commercials for the Shark Tank show depict sharks swimming

in dark blue water, circling around the Shark Tank Logo;

ppp) Whether, as a result of SPT’s nearly five years of continuous use and exhibition of

its SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, SPT has acquired substantial goodwill,

and the SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and Shark Tank trade dress have become clearly

associated with SPT’s hit show;



Page 19 of 51

qqq) Whether, through its adoption and prior use in interstate commerce, SPT owns

common law trademark and trade dress rights throughout the United States in connection

with the Shark Tank show;

rrr) Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress have been displayed throughout the United

States via numerous media outlets;

sss) The audience for SPT’s services relating to Shark Tank.

ttt) The strength and fame of SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and trade dress;

uuu) Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress are well known and have come to be

associated exclusively with SPT’s Shark Tank show;

vvv) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress have acquired

secondary meaning among the consuming public;

www) Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress are non-functional;

xxx) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress are distinctive;

yyy) Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress were distinctive before Celler began

offering its goods and services for Shark Tour for sale;

zzz) Whether Celler used SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, and also

ABC’s trademark and/or logo, in the advertisement, marketing, sale, and offering for sale

of goods and services in connection with Shark Tour;

aaaa) Whether Celler is using/has used a mark that infringes upon SPT’s registered

SHARK TANK trademark by using the trademark in connection with the sale or offer to

sell goods or services; using the trademark in commerce; and, using the trademark in a

manner that is likely to: cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source, origin,

affiliation, approval, or sponsorship of Celler’s goods or services;



Page 20 of 51

bbbb) Whether, in determining the significance of third-party uses, courts must consider

the entire name a third-party uses, as well as the kind of business in which the user is

engaged;

cccc) Whether trade dress protection is appropriate to protect websites;

dddd) Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress are famous and

distinctive, either inherently or through acquired distinctiveness;

eeee) Whether Celler’s use of its purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress began

after SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress became famous;

ffff) Whether Celler’s use of its purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress is likely

to cause dilution by blurring and/or dilution by tarnishment of SPT’s famous SHARK

TANK trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress;

gggg) Whether Celler’s purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress was first used

after October 6, 2006;

hhhh) Whether Celler made changes to the Shark Tour website in response to SPT’s

August 2, 2013 demand letter;

iiii) Whether Celler used SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and/or trade dress without SPT’s

authorization;

jjjj) Whether Celler either had actual notice and knowledge and/or had constructive notice, of

SPT’s ownership and registration of the SHARK TANK mark, as well as the SHARK

TANK Logo, and trade dress, prior to Celler’s adoption and use of SPT’s SHARK TANK

mark, Logo, and trade dress in promoting its Shark Tour;

kkkk) Whether Celler’s use of Shark Tour, the SHARK TANK trademark, SHARK

TANK Logo and ABC logo, the Sharks, and the putative trade dress of Celler’s



Page 21 of 51

promotional materials create a likelihood of confusion with SPT’s SHARK TANK

trademark, Logo, and trade dress;

llll) Whether Celler’s promotional materials suggest to consumers that Celler’s goods and

services are in some manner connected with, sponsored by, affiliated with, or related to

SPT, SPT’s business, and/or SPT’s goods and services;

mmmm) Whether Celler’s conduct in using SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade

dress was willful and intentional;

nnnn) Celler’s intent to copy the SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress creates a

presumption of likelihood of confusion;

oooo) Whether Celler’s use of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, and

his additional and unauthorized use of ABC’s trademark and logo, are likely to cause

confusion or to deceive customers as to the affiliation, association or connection of Celler’s

Shark Tour with SPT’s Shark Tank; and

pppp) Whether Celler’s use of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, unless

enjoined, threatens to dilute, blur, or tarnish the distinctive quality of SPT’s SHARK

TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress;

qqqq) Whether Shark Tour is a logical expansion of SPT’s trademark rights given that

“tour” is frequently used by other entertainment properties and has been considered by SPT

to describe live tours following on the heels of successful television and other

entertainment shows (e.g. “Idol Tour” to describe the live tour promoting the valuable

American Idol trademark and television show);

rrrr) Whether Plaintiffs’ continued use of their proposed Shark Tour trademark and

other infringing trade dress threatens to confuse the public about the origin or source of the



Page 22 of 51

Shark Tour, dilute SPT’s valuable intellectual property and should be enjoined to prevent

irreparable harm;

ssss) Whether SPT has proved and can recover any damages on any of the state or federal

Counterclaims;

tttt) Whether SPT intentionally and without justification interfered with any of Plaintiffs’

contracts relating to their proposed Shark Tour event;

uuuu) Whether SPT’s communications relating to Plaintiffs and their Shark Tour event

were at least in part privileged attempts to protect SPT’s property and financial interests;

vvvv) Whether SPT’s alleged conduct proximately caused any legally cognizable injury

to Plaintiffs, or any of them;

wwww) Whether Plaintiffs can prove any alleged damages to a reasonable certainty and, if

so, what damages can it prove; and

xxxx) Whether the Celler Parties acted in a manner in relation to SPT’s intellectual

property that they should be barred from pursuing their tortious interference claim based on

the doctrine of unclean hands

yyyy) On August 19, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)

issued an Office Action (Official Letter) about The Celler Organization’s Application

Serial No. 86001456 for registration of SHARK TOUR, wherein it stated that: “The

trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending

marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act

Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).”

zzzz) In February 2013, Sony submitted a Letter of Protest to the USPTO seeking to have

the USPTO refuse to register The Celler Organization’s SHARK TOUR service mark.



Page 23 of 51

aaaaa) On March 19, 2014, the USPTO issued a Notice of Publication, which states that:

“The mark of the application identified appears to be entitled to registration. The mark will,

in accordance with Section 12(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, be published

in the Official Gazette on the date indicated above for the purpose of opposition by any

person who believes he will be damaged by the registration of the mark. If no opposition is

filed within the time specified by Section 13(a) of the Statute or by rules 2.101 or 2.102 of

the Trademark Rules, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks may issue a notice of

allowance pursuant to section 13(b) of the Statute.”

bbbbb) As a result of the engaged Sharks cancelling their contracts, the Celler Parties

cancelled the Shark Tour and never offered for sale nor sold any tickets.

ccccc) Despite their bona fide intention to use the SHARK TOUR service mark, after the

Celler Organization filed the application to register SHARK TOUR, The Celler Parties did

not conduct, host and present the Shark Tour on November 2, 2013 because the celebrities

that the Celler Organization had contracted to speak at the Shark Tour refused to attend and

participate.

ddddd) The extent of SPT’s rights in the Shark Tank Logo identified in Paragraph 21 of its

Counterclaim.

eeeee) Whether the Shark Tank Logo has acquired secondary meaning among consumers

and/or is otherwise subject to protection under the Lanham Act;

fffff) Whether the official Shark Tank show website, located at

abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank (“Shark Tank Website”), featured during the relevant time

period protectable trade dress, or “look and feel,” that included, among other things, a blue

and black color theme, the words SHARK TANK written in all-capital letters on the upper



Page 24 of 51

left-hand portion of the screen, menu options presented horizontally across the top of the

screen in gray, a depiction of the characters in the show immediately below the masthead,

and a depiction of water in the background of the page;

ggggg) Whether the Shark Tank website is a product or service separate apart from the

Shark Tank television show.;

hhhhh) Whether SPT has rights in the trade dress of the official Shark Tank show website

located at abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank.

iiiii) Whether SPT owns common law rights throughout the United States in connection

with the Shark Tank trademark and trade dress;

jjjjj) Whether the Shark Tank trade dress is functional.

kkkkk) Whether the Shark Tank trade dress has acquired secondary meaning among

consumers and/or is otherwise subject to protection under the Lanham Act.

lllll) Whether, SPT has acquired substantial goodwill in the SHARK TANK mark, logo,

and trade dress;

mmmmm) Whether, the SHARK TANK logo and trade dress were distinctive before Celler

began offering its goods and services for sale;

nnnnn) Whether the parties or their respective services compete against each other.;

ooooo) If SPT has any enforceable rights in the Shark Tank Logo and/or the Shark Tank

trade dress, whether purchasers or prospective purchasers of The Celler Parties’ social

entertainment services and/or education services are likely to believe that: (1) any such

services come from the same source as SPT’s ongoing reality television series offered

under the asserted logo and/or trade dress; or (2) any services offered by The Celler Parties



Page 25 of 51

are related to or associated with the source of SPT’s ongoing reality television series

offered under the asserted logo and/or trade dress.

ppppp) Whether there is any trade dress associated with Celler’s Shark Tour;

qqqqq) Whether the Internet website located at sharktour2013.com is similar to the Shark

Tank Trade Dress.

rrrrr) Whether the Shark Tour logo is similar to the Shark Tank logo;

sssss) Whether the parties offer similar services under the Shark Tank logo and/or trade

dress at issue;

ttttt) Whether the parties use similar retail outlets to offer their services;

uuuuu) Whether the prospective purchasers of the parties’ respective services are similar.

vvvvv) Whether The Celler Parties used the Shark Tank logo on the website located at

sharktour2013.com to suggest affiliation, sponsorship or source, or whether it was used as

a truthful representation of biographical information of the celebrities who The Celler

Organization had contracted to appear at the Shark Tour;

wwwww) If SPT has any enforceable rights in the logo and/or trade dress and if consumers

are likely to experience confusion, whether Sony has suffered any actual damages and, if

so, the dollar amount of such actual damages.;

xxxxx) If SPT has any enforceable logo and/or trade dress rights and if consumers are

likely to experience confusion, whether The Celler Parties earned any profit arising out of

the logo and/or trade dress at issue, from the date that such became protectable to the

present date. And, if The Celler Parties are determined to have infringed SPT’s mark,

logo or trade dress, the amount of such profits that may be subject to disgorgement, if any,

as a possible damages recovery.



Page 26 of 51

yyyyy) Whether or not The Celler Parties acted willfully

zzzzz) Sony has not asserted a claim in this action for cyberpiracy under 15 U.S.C.

§1125(d) with regard to the domain name sharktour2013.com or any other domain name.

aaaaaa) The extent to which SPT is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the Shark

Tank mark, logo and/or trade dress;

bbbbbb) The nature and extent of use of the same or similar mark by third parties;

cccccc) Whether the registered Shark Tank service mark is famous among the general

consuming public of the United States, and if so, when it became famous;

dddddd) Whether the registered Shark Tank service mark is famous in Florida, and if so,

when it became famous in Florida;

eeeeee) Separate and apart from any fame the registered SHARK TANK service mark

might have, whether the Shark Tank Trade Dress is famous among the general consuming

public of the United States, and if so, when it became famous;

ffffff) Separate and apart from any fame the registered SHARK TANK service mark

might have, whether the Shark Tank trade dress is famous in Florida, and if so, when it

became famous in Florida;

gggggg) Whether the Shark Tank Logo is famous among the general consuming public of

the United States, and if so, when it became famous;

hhhhhh) Whether the Shark Tank Logo is famous in Florida, and if so, when it became

famous in Florida;

iiiiii) Whether the parties offer dissimilar services under the mark, logo and/or trade

dress at issue;



Page 27 of 51

jjjjjj) If SPT’s service mark is distinctive and famous, whether such distinctiveness has

been impaired as a consequence of Celler’s use of any mark on dissimilar services;

kkkkkk) If SPT’s logo is distinctive and famous, whether such distinctiveness has been

impaired as a consequence of Celler’s use of any logo on dissimilar services;

llllll) If SPT’s trade dress is distinctive and famous, whether such distinctiveness has

been impaired as a consequence of Celler’s use of any trade dress on dissimilar services;

mmmmmm) Whether Celler’s marketing of the SHARK TOUR, unless enjoined,

threatens to dilute the distinctive quality, if any, of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, logo, or

trade dress;

nnnnnn) If any distinctiveness of SPT’s mark has been impaired, whether SPT has any

suffered actual damages as a result thereof and, if so, the dollar amount of such actual

damages;

oooooo) Whether SPT has ever conducted, hosted or presented a live SHARK TANK

exposition or tour;

pppppp) Whether The Celler Parties compete with or have competed with SPT with regard

to any offering of services in the nature of an ongoing reality television series;

qqqqqq) Whether Celler’s acts involved a consumer transaction;

rrrrrr) Whether Celler’s conduct was unconscionable;

ssssss) If Sony has any enforceable rights in the Shark Tank mark, logo and/or trade dress,

whether purchasers or prospective purchasers of The Celler Parties’ services are likely to

believe that: (1) any such services come from the same source as SPT’s ongoing reality

television series offered under the asserted logo and/or trade dress; or (2) any services



Page 28 of 51

offered by The Celler Parties are sponsored or approved by the source of SPT’s ongoing

reality television series offered under the asserted logo and/or trade dress;

tttttt) If Celler has committed unconscionable acts through a consumer transaction,

whether SPT has any suffered actual damages as a result thereof and, if so, the dollar

amount of such actual damages;

uuuuuu) Whether Celler used the SHARK TANK mark, logo, and trade dress in in

connection with promoting Shark Tour;

vvvvvv) Whether Celler’s marketing of Shark Tour led consumers to believe that Celler’s

goods and services are in some manner sponsored by, affiliated with, or authorized by SPT,

SPT’s business, and/or SPT’s goods and services; and

wwwwww) Whether Celler’s conduct was willful and intentional;

Disputed Facts that SPT intends to litigate at trial

a. SPT produces television shows.

b. Daymond John, Robert Herjavec, Barbara Corcoran, and Kevin Harrington appear

or appeared from time to time on the SPT-produced television show Shark Tank that has aired on

ABC television since 2009;

c. Daymond John, Barbara Corcoran, Robert Herjavec and Kevin Harrington

(collectively, the “Sharks”) are (John, Corcoran and Herjavec) or were (Harrington) entrepreneur

cast members of the Shark Tank show;

d. The Celler Parties developed a website, at the domain name sharktour2013.com,

which was to be a promotional tool and an outlet through which tickets would be sold for Shark

Tour;



Page 29 of 51

e. The Celler Parties cancelled the Shark Tour in 2013, and never sold any tickets;

f. SPT’s Shark Tank show features business pitches from aspiring entrepreneurs to a

panel of potential investors who are called the “Sharks” on the show;

g. SPT filed an intent-to-use trademark application for SHARK TANK in the United

States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on September 18, 2008 under Section 1(b) of the

Lanham Act;

h. In response to inquiry by the PTO, SPT stated that the SHARK TANK mark had no

significance in the relevant trade or industry or as applied to entertainment services in the nature of

an ongoing reality television series, nor did it have any geographical significance;

i. SPT was granted a federal trademark registration for the standard character

SHARK TANK word mark on November 24, 2009 (reg. no. 3716584) for use in connection with

entertainment services in the nature of an ongoing reality television series, involving presentation

of business concepts in International Class 41; The SHARK TANK mark is used by the American

Broadcasting Company (“ABC”) through its televising of the Shark Tank television show and its

production and display of a website, located on the Internet at abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank,

promoting the television show. SPT also promotes and advertises the Shark Tank show through a

variety of means;

j. Celler is in no way affiliated with the Shark Tank show, SPT or ABC;

k. The Shark Tour was scheduled to take place on November 2, 2013 at the Orange

County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida – which was the only date and venue ever booked

for the Shark Tour;



Page 30 of 51

l. Daymond John, Barbara Corcoran, Robert Herjavec and Kevin Harrington

(collectively, the “Sharks”) are (John, Corcoran and Herjavec) or were (Harrington)

entrepreneurs and investor cast members of the Shark Tank show;

m. Bobbie Celler was aware of SPT’s Shark Tank show prior to Celler’s creation and

marketing of the Shark Tour mark and event;

n. The Shark Tour website was launched on or about July 16, 2013;

o. On July 3, 2013, The Celler Organization submitted a trademark application for

registration of SHARK TOUR (serial no. 86001456) seeking to register SHARK TOUR in

standard characters for use in connection with the following services: Arranging, organizing,

conducting, and hosting social entertainment events; Education services, namely, providing live

and on-line classes, courses, seminars, videos, special events and workshops in the field of

business and entrepreneurship in International Class 41;

p. On August 2, 2013, counsel for SPT sent a letter to Bobbie Celler and The Celler

Organization demanding that they cease from using, and take down from the Shark Tour website

any of SPT’s intellectual property and that they withdraw the application for registration of

SHARK TOUR;

q. The Celler Parties have not conducted, hosted or presented any event under the

SHARK TOUR mark;

r. The Celler Parties intended to conduct, host and present a live exposition or touring

event featuring the presentation of business concepts to some of the Sharks from the Shark Tank

show;

s. Neither SPT nor ABC has yet conducted, hosted or presented a live exposition or

touring version of the Shark Tank show;



Page 31 of 51

t. SPT intends to conduct, host and present a live exposition or touring version of the

Shark Tank show; and

u. Celler has not produced and distributed an ongoing reality television series.

v. Whether SPT produces and distributes television shows;

w. Whether SPT is the producer and owner of the television show Shark Tank,

featured on ABC;

x. Whether Shark Tank premiered on ABC in August 2009, and is now in its fifth

season on ABC, running consistently during ABC’s prime time television programing schedule;

y. The extent to which Shark Tank has been advertised and promoted since it

premiered five (5) years ago;

z. Whether SPT has been using the SHARK TANK trademark continuously since

August 2009 in the field of entertainment services involving the presentation and valuation of

business concepts;

aa. Whether, as of 2012, the Shark Tank show averaged seven million viewers an

episode, and was the most watched program on Friday nights in the 18-49 year old demographic;

bb. Whether the Shark Tank show averaged over eight million viewers an episode in

2013;

cc. Whether, in 2012 and 2013, Shark Tank received Emmy nominations for

Outstanding Reality Program, in 2012 received a nomination for a Critics’ Choice Television

Award for Best Reality Series, and in 2013, received a nomination for a Producers Guild Award;

dd. Whether the official Shark Tank show website, located at

abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank (“Shark Tank Website”), featured during the relevant time period a

distinctive trade dress, or “look and feel,” that included, among other things, a blue and black color



Page 32 of 51

theme with varying shades of blue, the words SHARK TANK written in all-capital letters on the

upper left-hand portion of the screen and presented in blue and black, menu options presented

horizontally across the top of the screen in gray, the SHARK TANK Logo (the SHARK TANK

mark written in all capital letters with teeth marks in the “K” of “TANK”), a depiction of the

characters in the show immediately below the masthead, a depiction of water in the background of

the page, and a depiction of circling sharks;

ee. Whether elements of SPT’s trade dress appear on the Shark Tank show, and in

advertisements and promotional materials for the show;

ff. Whether television commercials for the Shark Tank show depict sharks swimming

in dark blue water, circling around the Shark Tank Logo;

gg. Whether, as a result of SPT’s nearly five years of continuous use and exhibition of

its SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, SPT has acquired substantial goodwill, and the

SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and Shark Tank trade dress have become clearly associated with

SPT’s hit show;

hh. Whether, through its adoption and prior use in interstate commerce, SPT owns

common law trademark and trade dress rights throughout the United States in connection with the

Shark Tank show;

ii. Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress have been displayed throughout the

United States via numerous media outlets;

jj. The audience for SPT’s services relating to Shark Tank;

kk. The strength and fame of SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and trade dress;

ll. Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress are well known and have come to be

associated exclusively with SPT’s Shark Tank show;



Page 33 of 51

mm. Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress have acquired

secondary meaning among the consuming public;

nn. Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress are non-functional;

oo. Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress are distinctive;

pp. Whether the Shark Tank Logo and trade dress were distinctive before Celler began

offering its goods and services for Shark Tour for sale;

qq. Whether Celler used SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, and also ABC’s

trademark and/or logo, in the advertisement, marketing, sale, and offering for sale of goods and

services in connection with Shark Tour;

rr. Whether Celler is using/has used a mark that infringes upon SPT’s registered SHARK

TANK trademark by using the trademark in connection with the sale or offer to sell goods or

services; using the trademark in commerce; and, using the trademark in a manner that is likely to:

cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source, origin, affiliation, approval, or

sponsorship of Celler’s goods or services;

ss. Whether, in determining the significance of third-party uses, courts must consider

the entire name a third-party uses, as well as the kind of business in which the user is engaged;

tt. Whether trade dress protection is appropriate to protect websites;

uu. Whether SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress are famous and

distinctive, either inherently or through acquired distinctiveness;

vv. Whether Celler’s use of its purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress began after

SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress became famous;

ww. Whether Celler’s use of its purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress is likely to

cause dilution by blurring and/or dilution by tarnishment of SPT’s famous SHARK TANK



Page 34 of 51

trademark, Logo, and Trade Dress;

xx. Whether Celler’s purported Shark Tour trademark and trade dress was first used

after October 6, 2006;

yy. Whether Celler made changes to the Shark Tour website in response to SPT’s

August 2, 2013 demand letter;

zz. Whether Celler used SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and/or trade dress without

SPT’s authorization;

aaa. Whether Celler either had actual notice and knowledge and/or had constructive

notice, of SPT’s ownership and registration of the SHARK TANK mark, as well as the SHARK

TANK Logo, and trade dress, prior to Celler’s adoption and use of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark,

Logo, and trade dress in promoting its Shark Tour;

bbb. Whether Celler’s use of Shark Tour, the SHARK TANK trademark, SHARK

TANK Logo and ABC logo, the Sharks, and the putative trade dress of Celler’s promotional

materials create a likelihood of confusion with SPT’s SHARK TANK trademark, Logo, and trade

dress;

ccc. Whether Celler’s promotional materials suggest to consumers that Celler’s goods

and services are in some manner connected with, sponsored by, affiliated with, or related to SPT,

SPT’s business, and/or SPT’s goods and services;

ddd. Whether Celler’s conduct in using SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade

dress was willful and intentional;

eee. Whether Celler’s intent to copy the SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress

creates a presumption of likelihood of confusion;



Page 35 of 51

fff. Whether Celler’s use of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, and

his additional and unauthorized use of ABC’s trademark and logo, are likely to cause confusion or

to deceive customers as to the affiliation, association or connection of Celler’s Shark Tour with

SPT’s Shark Tank; and

ggg. Whether Celler’s use of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark, Logo, and trade dress, unless

enjoined, threatens to dilute, blur, or tarnish the distinctive quality of SPT’s SHARK TANK mark,

Logo, and trade dress;

hhh. Whether Shark Tour is a logical expansion of SPT’s trademark rights given that

“tour” is frequently used by other entertainment properties and has been considered by SPT to

describe live tours following on the heels of successful television and other entertainment shows

(e.g. “Idol Tour” to describe the live tour promoting the valuable American Idol trademark and

television show);

iii. Whether Plaintiffs’ continued use of their proposed Shark Tour trademark and

other infringing trade dress threatens to confuse the public about the origin or source of the Shark

Tour, dilute SPT’s valuable intellectual property and should be enjoined to prevent irreparable

harm;

jjj. Whether SPT has proved and can recover any damages on any of the state or federal

Counterclaims;

kkk. Whether SPT intentionally and without justification interfered with any of

Plaintiffs’ contracts relating to their proposed Shark Tour event;

lll. Whether SPT’s communications relating to Plaintiffs and their Shark Tour event

were at least in part privileged attempts to protect SPT’s property and financial interests;



Page 36 of 51

mmm. Whether SPT’s alleged conduct proximately caused any legally cognizable injury

to Plaintiffs, or any of them;

nnn. Whether Plaintiffs can prove any alleged damages to a reasonable certainty and, if

so, what damages can it prove; and

ooo. Whether the Celler Parties acted in a manner in relation to SPT’s intellectual

property that they should be barred from pursuing their tortious interference claim based on the

doctrine of unclean hands.

6. CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF LAW ON WHICH THERE IS

AGREEMENT

a. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court;

b. Plaintiffs’ Tortious Interference claim is governed by Florida law;

c. Defendant’s First, Second, and Third Counterclaims are governed by Federal law;

d. Defendant’s Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Counterclaims are governed by Florida law;

e. Trademarks are classified into four categories: (1) generic marks, which suggest the

basic nature of the product or service; (2) descriptive marks, which identify a characteristic or

quality of the product or service; (3) suggestive marks, which suggest characteristics of the product

or service and require an effort of the imagination by the consumer in order to be understood as

descriptive; and (4) arbitrary or fanciful marks, which bear no relationship to the product or service

and, thus, are the strongest category of trademarks. Gift of Learning Foundation, Inc. v. TGC,

Inc., 329 F.3d 792, 798-99 (11th Cir. 2003);

f. A trademark must be used in United States commerce to be within the purview of

the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)-(c), §1053;



Page 37 of 51

g. A trademark must be registered to be enforceable under Section 32(1) of the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114(1);

h. A trademark is “famous” if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public

of the United States as the designation of the source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner.

15 U.S.C. §1125(c)(2);

i. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1057(f), copies of any records, books, papers, or drawings

belonging to the United States Patent and Trademark Office relating to marks, and copies of

registrations, when authenticated by the seal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and

certified by the Director, or in his name by an employee of the Office duly designated by the

Director, shall be evidence in all cases wherein the originals would be evidence;

j. A claim under 15 U.S.C. §1114 requires a USPTO registration of the mark that the

claimant is seeking to enforce;

k. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1127, the term “mark” includes any trademark, service

mark, collective mark, or certification mark; and

l. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1127, the term “use in commerce” means the bona fide use

of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark, and a

mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce on services when it is used or displayed in the sale

or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered

in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the

services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.



Page 38 of 51

7. CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF LAW WHICH REMAIN FOR

DETERMINATION BY THE COURT

Issues of law that SPT Believes Remain to be Determined by the Court

ppp. A federal registration means that the trademark is at least descriptive with

secondary meaning;

qqq. The challenger of a federally registered mark has the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that the trademark is invalid because it was descriptive but lacked

secondary meaning before it began using its mark;

rrr. A trademark must be used in United States commerce to be within the purview of

the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)-(c), §1053;

sss. A trademark must be registered to be enforceable under Section 32(1) of the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114(1);

ttt. A trademark that is not federally registered, including trade dress, is protectable

under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a);

uuu. To prevail on a claim for likely dilution of a trademark under federal law, the

trademark owner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its trademark was “famous”

at the time of the defendant's first use of its trademark. 15 U.S.C. §1125(c);

vvv. A claimed trademark is “famous” if it is widely recognized by the general

consuming public of the United States as the designation of the source of the owner's goods or

services. 15 U.S.C. §1125(c);

www. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1057(b), a certificate of registration of a mark upon the

Principal Register is, at least, prima facie evidence, of the validity of the registered mark and of the

registration of the mark, of the owner’s ownership of the mark, and of the owner’s exclusive right

to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in



Page 39 of 51

the certificate, subject to any conditions or limitations stated in the certificate. The effective date

of this presumption is the application's filing date. See Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988,

Pub. L. 100-667, § 128(b)(1), 102 Stat. 3944;

xxx. Where a trademark is registered on the Principal Register, the public is deemed to

have knowledge of the registration and of the rights claimed in the registration, or “constructive

notice.” As such, a challenging party cannot claim that it adopted its trademark without

knowledge of registered trademark. Nationwide constructive notice of rights dates back to the

filing date of the application. 15 U.S.C. § 1072 (2006);

yyy. The rights of the owner of a registered trademark are not limited to protection with

respect to the specific goods and services stated on the certificate, but extend to any goods or

services related in the minds of consumers in the sense that a single producer is likely to put out

both goods and services. E. Remy Martin & Co., S.A. v. Shaw-Ross International Imports, Inc.,

756 F.2d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1985) (“the rights of the owner of a registered trademark are not

limited to protection with respect to the specific goods stated on the certificate -- for Remy Martin,

cognac and brandy -- but extend to any goods related in the minds of consumers in the sense that a

single producer is likely to put out both goods.”);

zzz. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1057(f), copies of any records, books, papers, or drawings

belonging to the United States Patent and Trademark Office relating to marks, and copies of

registrations, when authenticated by the seal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and

certified by the Director, or in his name by an employee of the Office duly designated by the

Director, shall be evidence in all cases wherein the originals would be evidence;

aaaa. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1111, a registrant who has not given notice of registration

by displaying with the mark the words "Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office" or "Reg.



Page 40 of 51

U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off." or the letter R enclosed within a circle (“®”) may nonetheless obtain an

injunction against infringing uses of its registered trademark; it can also recover profits and

damages if the defendant had actual notice of the registration;

bbbb. A claim under 15 U.S.C. §1114 requires a USPTO registration of the mark that the

claimant is seeking to enforce;

cccc. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(3), for trade dress not registered on the Principal

Register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter

sought to be protected is not functional;

dddd. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1127, the term “mark” includes any trademark, service

mark, collective mark, or certification mark;

eeee. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1127, the term “use in commerce” means the bona fide use

of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark, and a

mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce on services when it is used or displayed in the sale

or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered

in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the

services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services;

ffff. Under Florida law, trademark infringement and unfair competition are unfair and

deceptive trade practices which violate Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

PepsiCo, Inc. v. Distribuidora La Matagalpa, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1114 (S.D. Fla. 2007);

gggg. Whether Plaintiffs can prove their Tortious Interference claim by a preponderance

of the evidence;

hhhh. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that SPT

intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ business/contractual relationships with the Sharks by



Page 41 of 51

inducing or otherwise causing the Sharks not to continue doing business with Celler and to

terminate their written contacts with Celler;

iiii. If Plaintiffs can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that SPT interfered with

Plaintiffs’ business/contractual relationships with the Sharks, whether, Plaintiffs can prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that such interference was: (a) improper; (b) not justified; (c)

intentional; and (d) the proximate cause of any damages incurred by Plaintiffs;

jjjj. Whether Plaintiffs can prove the amount of their purported damages with a

reasonable certainty;

kkkk. Whether Plaintiffs’ Tortious Interference claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean

hands;

llll. Whether each of The Celler Parties may be held liable on SPT’s Counterclaims;

mmmm. Whether SPT can prove its Federal Trademark Infringement claim by a

preponderance of the evidence;

nnnn. Whether SPT can prove its Federal False Designation of Origin and Unfair

Competition claim by a preponderance of the evidence;

oooo. Whether SPT can prove its Federal Trademark Dilution by a preponderance of the

evidence;

pppp. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Trademark Dilution claim by a preponderance

of the evidence;

qqqq. Whether the Florida anti-dilution statute, Fla. Stat. §495.151, applies to the use of a

similar mark on similar goods;

rrrr. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Unfair Competition claim under Florida’s

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by a preponderance of the evidence;



Page 42 of 51

ssss. Whether a private right of action for damages under the Florida’s Deceptive and

Unfair Trade Practices Act can be maintained regardless of whether the alleged unfair or deceptive

acts or practices complained of involve a consumer transaction;

tttt. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Common Law Infringement and Unfair


uuuu. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal Trademark Infringement claim,

whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;

vvvv. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal False Designation of Origin and

Unfair Competition claim, whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;

wwww. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal Trademark Dilution claim,


xxxx. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Florida Trademark Dilution claim, whether

SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;

yyyy. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Florida Unfair Competition claim under

Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, whether Celler caused SPT to sustain actual

damages;

zzzz. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Common Law Infringement and Unfair

Competition claim, whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;

aaaaa. Whether this is an exceptional case under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117; and

bbbbb. Whether the prevailing party on each of Defendant’s First, Second, Third, Fourth

and Fifth Counterclaims is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, to be determined by the Court

post-trial, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and Fla. Stat. §§ 501.2105 and 501.211, respectively.



Page 43 of 51

Issues of law that the Celler Parties Believe Remain to be Determined by the Court

a. Whether Plaintiffs can prove their Tortious Interference claim by a preponderance

of the evidence;

b. If Plaintiffs can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that SPT interfered with

Plaintiffs’ business/contractual relationships with the Sharks, whether, Defendants can prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that such interference was: (a) proper; and (b) justified;

c. Whether Plaintiffs can prove the amount of their purported damages with a

reasonable certainty;

d. Whether Sony can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs’

Tortious Interference claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands;

e. Whether Sony can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it had a privilege

to interfere with Celler’s contracts with the Shark celebrities;

f. A trademark that is not federally registered, including trade dress, is protectable

under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a);

g. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1057(b), a certificate of registration of a mark upon the

Principal Register is prima facie evidence, of the validity of the registered mark and of the

registration of the mark, of the owner’s ownership of the mark, and of the owner’s exclusive right

to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in

the certificate, subject to any conditions or limitations stated in the certificate. The effective date

of this presumption is the application's filing date. See Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988,

Pub. L. 100-667, § 128(b)(1), 102 Stat. 3944;



Page 44 of 51

h. To prevail on a claim for likely dilution of a trademark under federal law, the

trademark owner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its trademark was “famous”

at the time of the defendant's first use of its trademark. 15 U.S.C. §1125(c);

i. Whether each of The Celler Parties may be held liable on SPT’s Counterclaims;

j. Whether SPT can prove its Federal Trademark Infringement claim by a

preponderance of the evidence;

h. Whether trade dress in a website is subject to protection under the Lanham Act

without a showing of secondary meaning among consumers;

k. A federal registration means that the trademark is at least descriptive with

secondary meaning;

l. The challenger of a federally registered mark has the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that the trademark is invalid because it was descriptive but lacked

secondary meaning before it began using its mark;

m. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1062, upon the filing of an application for registration and

payment of the prescribed fee, the Director shall refer the application to the examiner in charge of

the registration of marks, who shall cause an examination to be made and, if on such examination it

shall appear that the applicant is entitled to registration, or would be entitled to registration upon

the acceptance of the statement of use required by section 1051(d) of this title, the Director shall

cause the mark to be published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark Office;

n. Where a trademark is registered on the Principal Register, the public is deemed to

have knowledge of the registration and of the rights claimed in the registration, or “constructive

notice.” As such, a challenging party cannot claim that it adopted its trademark without



Page 45 of 51

knowledge of registered trademark. Nationwide constructive notice of rights dates back to the

filing date of the application. 15 U.S.C. § 1072 (2006);

o. The rights of the owner of a registered trademark are not limited to protection with

respect to the specific goods and services stated on the certificate, but extend to any goods or

services related in the minds of consumers in the sense that a single producer is likely to put out

both goods and services. E. Remy Martin & Co., S.A. v. Shaw-Ross International Imports, Inc.,

756 F.2d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1985) (“the rights of the owner of a registered trademark are not

limited to protection with respect to the specific goods stated on the certificate -- for Remy Martin,

cognac and brandy -- but extend to any goods related in the minds of consumers in the sense that a

single producer is likely to put out both goods.”);

p. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1111, in any suit for infringement by a registrant who has

failed to give notice of registration by displaying with the mark the words "Registered in U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office" or "Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off." or the letter R enclosed within a

circle, thus ®, no profits and no damages shall be recovered under the provisions of this chapter

unless the defendant had actual notice of the registration;

q. Whether SPT can prove its Federal False Designation of Origin and Unfair


r. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(3), for trade dress not registered on thePrincipal

Register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter

sought to be protected is not functional;

s. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)(4)(B), in an action for trade dress dilution, where

the trade dress is not registered with the USPTO but incorporates a mark that is registered on the

USPTO’s Principal Register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of



Page 46 of 51

proving that, the unregistered matter, taken as a whole, is famous separate and apart from any fame

of such registered marks.

t. Under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(c), any fair use, including

nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another

person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services, is not

actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment;

u. The Florida anti-dilution statute, Fla. Stat. §495.151, does not apply to the use of a

similar mark on similar goods. Monsanto Co. v. Campuzano, 206 F.Supp.2d 1270 (S.D. Fla.

2002);

v. A private right of action for damages under the Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair

Trade Practices Act cannot be maintained unless the alleged unfair or deceptive acts or practices

complained of involves a consumer transaction. Hermosilla v. Octoscope Music, LLC, 2010 WL

5059559 *4 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2010); Monsanto Co. v. Campuzano, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1239, 1251

(S.D. Fla. 2002);

w. Whether SPT can prove its Federal Trademark Dilution by a preponderance of the

evidence;

x. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Trademark Dilution claim by a preponderance

of the evidence;

y. Whether the Florida anti-dilution statute, Fla. Stat. §495.151, applies to the use of a

similar mark on similar goods;

z. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Unfair Competition claim under Florida’s

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by a preponderance of the evidence;



Page 47 of 51

aa. Whether a private right of action for damages under the Florida’s Deceptive and

Unfair Trade Practices Act can be maintained regardless of whether the alleged unfair or deceptive

acts or practices complained of involve a consumer transaction;

bb. Whether SPT can prove its Florida Common Law Infringement and Unfair


cc. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal Trademark Infringement claim,


dd. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal False Designation of Origin and

Unfair Competition claim, whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;

ee. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Federal Trademark Dilution claim, whether


ff. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Florida Trademark Dilution claim, whether


gg. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Florida Unfair Competition claim under

Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, whether Celler caused SPT to sustain actual

damages;

hh. To the extent Celler is liable on SPT’s Common Law Infringement and Unfair

Competition claim, whether SPT is entitled to permanent injunctive relief or damages;

ii. Whether this is an exceptional case under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117; and

jj. Whether the prevailing party on each of Defendant’s First, Second, Third, Fourth

and Fifth Counterclaims is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, to be determined by the Court

post-trial, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and Fla. Stat. §§ 501.2105 and 501.211, respectively;



Page 48 of 51

kk. Whether SPT’s Counterclaim is properly pled under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure; and

ll. Whether SPT’s Counterclaim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

8. TRIAL EXHIBITS

Defendant’s Trial Exhibit List, with Plaintiffs’ objections, is attached hereto as Composite

Exhibit “A”. Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit List, with Defendant’s objections, is attached hereto as

Composite Exhibit “B”.

9. TRIAL WITNESSES

Plaintiffs’ Trial Witness List is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. Defendant’s Trial

Witness List is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”.

10. ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL

The Parties estimate 4-5 days for trial.

11. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Attorneys’ fees are not recoverable on Plaintiffs’ Tortious Interference claim. With

respect to Defendant’s Trademark Infringement (First Counterclaim), False Designation of

Unknown Origin and Unfair Competition Under Federal Law (Second Counterclaim), and

Trademark Dilution Under Federal Law (Third Counterclaim) claims, the Court may award

reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party “in exceptional cases” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §

1117. Similarly, with respect to Defendant’s Dilution Under State Law claim (Fourth

Counterclaim), the Court may award reasonable attorneys’ fee to the prevailing party “according

to the circumstances of the case.” Further, with respect to Defendant’s Unfair Competition Under

State Law claim (Fifth Counterclaim), the Court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the



Page 49 of 51

prevailing party pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 495.141 and 501.2105/501.211. The parties will brief

the issue of entitlement to attorneys’ fees for the Court post-trial.

Dated: April 7, 2014



Page 50 of 51

Respectfully submitted,

BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY,

P.C./ FOWLER WHITE BOGGS, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants

1200 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Tel: (954) 703-3900

Fax: (954) 270-3939

/s/ Jesse H. Diner

JESSE H. DINER

Florida Bar No.

E-mail: [email protected]

KIMBERLY GESSNER

Florida Bar No.

JOSE FLOREZ

Email: [email protected]


FELDMAN GALE, P.A.

James Anthony Gale

Susan Joy Latham

One Biscayne Tower

2 South Biscayne Blvd., 30th Floor

Miami, FL 33131-2148

Telephone: (305) 358-5001

Facsimile: (305) 358-3309



GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant

401 East Las Olas Boulevard

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Telephone: (954) 765-0500

Facsimile: (954) 765-1477

/s/ Glenn E. Goldstein

GLENN E. GOLDSTEIN

Florida Bar No. 435260


KRISTINA L. CIAFFI



IAN M. ROSS



333 Avenue of the Americas

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 579-0500

Facsimile: (305) 579-0717

JEFF E. SCOTT

(admitted pro hac vice)


1840 Century Park East

Suite 1900

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: (310) 586-7700

Facsimile: (310) 586-7800



Page 51 of 51

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 7th day of April, 2014, I electronically filed the

foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing

document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List in

the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by

CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to

receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Ian M. Ross

IAN M. ROSS

SERVICE LIST

Jesse H. Diner, Esq.

Kimberly Gessner

FOWLER WHITE BOGGS, P.A.

1200 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Tel: (954) 703-3900

Fax: (954) 270-3939



James Anthony Gale

Susan Joy Latham

FELDMAN GALE, P.A.

One Biscayne Tower

2 South Biscayne Blvd., 30th Floor

Miami, FL 33131-2148

Telephone: (305) 358-5001

Facsimile: (305) 358-3309


