Publix Complaint

Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 1 of 24 PageID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PUBLIX ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY

AND
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC. CASE NO.: ______
Plaintiffs,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED
v.
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
PHARMAPACKS, LLC AND
PACKABLE HOLDINGS, LLC
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Publix Asset Management Company and Publix Super Markets, Inc.
(collectively, “Publix”) file this Original Complaint against Defendants Pharmapacks,
LLC and Packable Holdings, LLC for trademark infringement, unfair competition,
and trademark dilution. Publix owns the federally registered Publix family of Single-
P Marks (as that term is defined below), which proximately feature the letter “P” in
sans serif typeface. Defendants have been and continue to infringe on Publix’s
trademarks through their use of a confusingly similar mark, as shown below:
Publix’s Registered Trademark Defendants’ Infringing Mark

Publix files this Complaint against Defendants for trademark infringement,
unfair competition, and trademark dilution. Publix seeks injunctive relief and
damages.
PARTIES
1. Publix Asset Management Company and Publix Super Markets, Inc. are
corporations duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Their
principal place of business is in Lakeland, Florida.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pharmapacks, LLC is a New
York company with an address of 1516 Motor Pkwy, Hauppauge, NY 11788.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Packable Holdings, LLC is a
Delaware company with an address of 1516 Motor Pkwy, Hauppauge, NY 11788.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This is a trademark infringement action brought pursuant to the
trademark laws of the United States, known as the Lanham Act, Title 15, United States
Code § 1051 et seq. with a supplemental state law claim
5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. Further, this Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(b)
and 1367.
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
Defendants regularly transact and conduct business in the State of Florida and this
2
District and Defendants’ contacts with the State of Florida and this District have been
continuous, systematic, and substantial.
7. On information and belief, Defendants advertise and market their goods
and services to those within the State of Florida and in this District.
8. Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendants import, sell, and
distribute their products in the State of Florida and in this District.
9. This Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), Defendants are deemed to reside within
this District for purposes of venue.
11. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
because Defendants reside and are doing business in this District. Defendants are using
the infringing marks to advertise their goods and services to individuals and companies
within this District, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims of this
action occurred in this District. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) because
Defendants are corporate defendants that are subject to personal jurisdiction in this
forum.
PUBLIX AND ITS SINGLE-P TRADEMARKS
12. Founded in 1930 in Winter Haven, Florida, Publix Super Markets, Inc.
is the largest and fastest-growing employee-owned company in the United States.
13. Publix has grown into a Fortune 500 company with more than 1,250
stores, and has more than 225,000 employees.
3
14. Publix has over 800 stores across Florida.
15. Publix also has stores in Alabama (81 stores), Georgia (193 stores), North
Carolina (49 stores), South Carolina (64 stores), Tennessee (50 stores), and Virginia
(19 stores).
16. Publix is currently planning to open new stores in Kentucky as well.
17. Publix is one of the 10 largest-volume supermarket chains in the country
with 2019 retail sales of over $38 billion.
18. Publix Asset Management Company is related to Publix Super Markets,
Inc. and owns and manages trademarks that are licensed to Publix Super Markets, Inc.
19. Publix Asset Management Company owns the following design marks
that prominently feature the letter “P” in sans serif type:
Registration Nos. Mark
1,794,016
4,355,392
4,844,271
4,682,412
4,685,090
4
Registration Nos. Mark
4,509,543
4,851,084
5,027,224
5,214,253
5,548,835
20. Copies of the registration certificates for these federally registered marks
are attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
21. Each of these registrations for these federally registered marks is and has
been in full force and effect and is valid in all respects.
22. Registration Nos. 1,794,016; 4,355,392; 4,844,271; 4,682,412; 4,685,090;
4,509,543; and 4,851,084 are incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
23. In addition, Publix has common law rights in these and other marks
featuring a single P in sans serif typeface (collectively, the “Single-P Marks”), such as
the following:
5
24. Publix has used and uses the Single-P Marks extensively in connection
with Publix’s goods and services.
25. For example, Publix uses the Single-P Marks in connection with over-
the-counter medicine, health products, vitamins, minerals, herbs, nutritional
supplements, homeopathic remedies, foods and beverages, sundries, cosmetics, skin
and hair products, toiletries, fragrances, personal care products, and medical supplies
for personal use.
26. Publix also uses the Single-P Marks in connection with its pharmacies
and pharmacy-related services, including prescription pharmaceuticals, vaccinations,
“body care specialists” to advise customers on health/wellness supplements, and walk-
in-care.
27. Products and services are offered under the Single-P Marks in more than
1,250 retail grocery stores.
28. Publix also uses the Single-P marks in connection with its ecommerce
operations via its website and mobile apps, including offering home delivery of
products under the Single-P Marks.
6
29. The Single-P Marks are the subject of extensive marketing and
advertising in print, television, online, and outdoor advertising and marketing
materials
30. Publix’s Single-P Marks are strong, especially in the states where Publix
has stores. The first of the Single-P Marks was used at least as early as 1972.
31. Publix’s Single-P Marks are registered for (among other things) retail
pharmacy services and retail grocery store services.
32. The products available through Publix’s retail pharmacy and retail
grocery store services under the Single-P marks include over-the-counter medicines,
health products, vitamins, minerals, herbs, nutritional supplements, homeopathic
remedies, foods and beverages, sundries, cosmetics, skin and hair care products,
toiletries, fragrances, personal care products and medical supplies for personal use.
33. Customers are able to shop for these products online using Publix’s
website (at www.publix.com), and home delivery of these products is available.
34. Publix has devoted substantial time, money, and resources marketing,
advertising, and promoting the Single-P Marks. As a result of these efforts and years
of use, Publix has acquired extraordinary goodwill and customer recognition in the
Single-P Marks in connection with Publix’s goods, including health and beauty
products.
35. Publix’s Single-P Marks are valuable financial assets to its business.
Publix has consistently used the Single-P Marks and is entitled to broad and exclusive
rights to use the marks nationwide, including in the State of Florida and this District.
7
DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
36. Defendants describe themselves as an enablement platform and retail
seller.
37. Defendants own and operate an ecommerce website at
www.pharmapacks.com where they offer health and beauty products to consumers.
Below is an image of the home page of their website:
38. Defendants, via their website at www.pharmapacks.com, market and sell
goods directly to consumers, including Florida residents.
39. Defendants are also a third-party seller of products through companies
such as Amazon.
40. Pharmapacks has stated that it is the largest third-party seller on Amazon.
8
41. The Chief Strategy Officer of Pharmapacks describes Defendants as “a
large marketplace seller.” 1
42. Via their website at www.pharmapacks.com, and via third-party websites
such as Amazon, Defendants compete with Publix—marketing and selling many of
the same goods to the same consumers.
43. Defendants and Publix offer health and beauty products directly to
consumers.
44. In fact, Defendants offer many of the same goods to consumers that are
sold in Publix stores.
45. On information and belief, Defendants purchase health and beauty
products wholesale, and then sell those products at a markup via various ecommerce
channels, such as their own website, Amazon, Walmart, and others.
46. Both Defendants and Publix sell their goods directly to consumers
through online channels and provide home delivery.
47. Not only do Defendants compete with Publix via their own website, but
Defendants also compete with Publix by selling products directly to consumers via the
website of Publix competitors, such as Walmart, Amazon, Target, and Kroger, as
illustrated below from page 19 of Defendants’ investor presentation: 2
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT8_LpnNJqI
2
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001828817/000114036121030752/brhc10028753_ex99-
2.htm
9
48. In connection with its business, Defendants use a logo prominently
featuring a single “P” in sans serif typeface within a circle (the “Infringing Marks”).
49. For example, Defendants use at least the following Infringing Marks:
10
50. The Infringing Marks are used in connection with products such as over-
the-counter medicine, health products, vitamins, minerals, herbs, nutritional
supplements, homeopathic remedies, foods and beverages, sundries, cosmetics, skin
and hair products, toiletries, fragrances, personal care products, and medical supplies
for personal use.
51. Defendants also use the Infringing Marks on their delivery boxes:
11
52. On information and belief, there has been actual confusion caused by
Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks.
53. On information and belief, Publix and Defendants have received
feedback from consumers commenting on how Defendants’ Infringing Marks are
nearly identical to Publix’s Single-P Marks.
54. Defendants are using the Infringing Marks in connection with the sale,
offering for sale, distribution, and advertising of their goods and services, including
goods and services covered by Publix many of the federal registrations for Publix’s
Single-P Marks.
55. Defendants use the Infringing Marks to market and sell health and beauty
products to consumers, such via their storefront through Amazon’s website:
12
56. The Infringing Marks are confusingly similar to Publix’s Single-P Marks,
which are well-established and are used to identify a variety of Publix’s goods and
services.
57. In November of 2019, Defendant Pharmapacks filed trademark
application serial no. 88700985 for the following design mark featuring one of the
Infringing Marks (“the ’985 Application”):
58. While Defendants have filed other trademark applications, the ’985
Application is the first to include a single P within a circle.
59. The ’985 Application was filed in international class 35 for “[o]nline
retail store services featuring over-the-counter medicine, health products, vitamins,
minerals, herbs, nutritional supplements, homeopathic remedies, foods and beverages,
13
sundries, cosmetics, skin and hair care products,, toiletries, fragrances, personal care
products and medical supplies for personal use.”
60. Publix, using the Single-P Marks, was and continues to offer the same
goods and services as identified in the ’985 Application, namely “online retail store
services featuring over-the-counter medicine, health products, vitamins, minerals,
herbs, nutritional supplements, homeopathic remedies, foods and beverages, sundries,
cosmetics, skin and hair care products,, toiletries, fragrances, personal care products
and medical supplies for personal use.”
61. Because registration of the mark at issue in the ’985 Application is likely
to harm Publix by causing consumer confusion, Publix opposed registration of the ’985
Application in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Proceeding No. 91264177
(“the Opposition”).
62. In connection with the Opposition, Publix commissioned a consumer
survey to measure the amount of potential consumer confusion between one of the
Infringing Marks and one of the Publix Single-P Marks.
63. Specifically, the survey conducted in connection with the Opposition
asked participants questions about the following two logos:
14
64. This survey showed that almost half of the survey participants that were
exposed to these two logos (over 45%) were likely to confuse the Pharmapacks logo
with the Publix Single-P Mark, even though the Pharmapacks logo included the
Pharmapacks name and tag line.
65. When asked why they believed that these two logos were of the same
company, survey participants provided the following explanations:
“They are the same.”
“The p looks similar”
“Because the ‘P’ is the same on both logos”
“While different the logos are basically the same.”
“They both have the P logo”
“They are both publix”
“The ‘P’ is similar”
“The ‘P’ was the same. Just different color”
15
“they both look like Publix”
“The P is representative of Publix chain and the second logo simulated
that”
66. On information and belief, Defendants have not conducted their own
consumer survey regarding any of their Infringing Marks as compared to any of
Publix’s Single-P Marks.
67. On information and belief, Defendant Pharmapacks was aware of
Publix’s Single-P Marks before they adopted and began using their Infringing Marks.
68. Defendants are not endorsed by, sponsored by, or affiliated with Publix
any way.
69. Defendants do not have Publix’s permission to use any of the Single-P
Marks.
70. Defendants’ continued unauthorized use of marks that are confusingly
similar to the Single-P Marks is willful and intentional.
71. In 2021, Defendants have expanded their use of the Infringing Marks by
deciding to continue using a confusingly similar P logo with their new brand name
Packable.
72. As a result of Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Infringing Marks, and
their refusal to cease use, Publix has suffered and will continue to suffer damages and
irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation, as well as its ability to distinguish its
products and services from those of Defendants in the minds of consumers.
16
COUNT I
FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
73. Publix incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
72.
74. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks in connection with their business
is likely to cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and
misleading impression that Defendants’ goods are made by or distributed by Publix,
or that Defendants’ are associated or connected with Publix, or Defendants’ have the
sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of Publix.
75. Defendants’ unauthorized use in commerce of the Infringing Marks
violates Section 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114).
76. Defendants’ activities of marketing, distributing, and selling products
and/or services in connecting with the Infringing Marks are causing and, unless
enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause a likelihood of confusion and deception
of members of the trade and public, and, additionally, injury to Publix’s goodwill and
reputation as symbolized by Publix’s Single-P Marks, for which Publix has no
adequate remedy at law.
77. Defendants’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious
intent to cause confusion and/or trade on the goodwill associated with Publix’s Single-
P Marks.
78. Defendants’ infringement is causing and will continue to cause great and
irreparable harm to Publix.
17
79. Defendants caused and are likely to continue causing substantial injury
to the public and to Publix.
80. Publix is entitled to injunctive relief and to recover Defendants’ profits,
actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees
under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1117.
COUNT II
FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION
72.
82. Defendants’ unauthorized use in commerce of the Infringing Marks as
alleged herein is likely to deceive consumers as to the origin, source, sponsorship, or
affiliation of Defendants’ goods and/or services, and is likely to cause consumers to
believe, contrary to facts, that Defendants’ goods and/or services are sold, authorized,
endorsed, or sponsored by Publix, or that Defendants are in some way affiliated with
or sponsored by Publix.
83. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ conduct is willful and is
intended to and is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation,
connection, or association of Defendants with Publix.
84. Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein constitutes unfair competition in
violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
85. Defendants’ activities have caused and, unless enjoined by this Court,
will continue to cause a likelihood of confusion and deception of members of the trade
18
and public, and, additionally, injury to Publix’s goodwill and reputation as symbolized
by Publix’s Single-P Marks, for which Publix has no adequate remedy at law.
86. Publix is entitled to injunctive relief and to recover Defendants’ profits,
actual damages, enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees
under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), 1116, and 1117.
COUNT III
COMMON-LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
72.
88. Publix owns all rights (including all common-law rights), title, and
interest in and to the Single-P Marks.
89. Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks in connection with its goods and
services in Florida and elsewhere creates a likelihood of confusion and has caused or
will cause actual confusion in the minds of the consuming public as to the source of
the goods and/or services.
90. Defendants’ use of the Infringing marks is likely to deceive consumers as
to the origin, source, sponsorship, or affiliation of Defendants’ goods and/or services,
and is likely to cause consumers to believe, contrary to facts, that Defendants’ goods
and/or services are sold, authorized, endorsed, or sponsored by Publix, or that
Defendants are in some way affiliated with or sponsored by Publix.
91. Defendants’ acts constitute trademark infringement in violation of the
common law of the State of Florida.
19
92. Defendants’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious
intent to trade on the goodwill associated with Publix’s Single-P Marks.
93. On information and belief, Defendants intend to continue and expand
their infringing actions, unless restrained by this Court. The actual and/or likely
confusion resulting from Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks in connection with
Defendants’ goods and services causes irreparable harm to Publix that cannot be
adequately compensated with damages. Publix is therefore entitled to preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief as requested herein.
94. Publix has sustained damage as a direct and proximate result of
Defendants’ infringement in an amount to be proven at trial.
COUNT IV
DILUTION UNDER SECTION 43(C)THE LANHAM ACT
72.
96. Based at least on the distinctiveness of Publix’s Single-P Marks, the
duration and extent of use of the Single-P Marks, the duration and extent of advertising
featuring the Single-P Marks, the geographic area in which Publix advertises and offers
its goods and services under the Single-P Marks, the nature of the trade channels used
to market the Publix’s goods and services under the Single-P Marks compared to the
trade channels through which Defendants’ sell, intend to sell, and are likely to sell their
products and services, the degree of public recognition of the Single-P Marks, and
Publix’s numerous federal registrations for the Single-P Marks, the Single-P Marks
20
have become famous, as that term is used in Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, and
have been famous for years.
97. Defendants’ actions described above, all occurring after the Single-P
Marks became famous, including Defendants’ proposed rebranding and expansion of
use of the Infringing Marks, are likely to cause dilution of the famous Single-P Marks
in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c).
98. Publix has sustained damage as a direct and proximate result of
Defendants’ dilution in an amount to be proven at trial.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
99. Publix demands a jury trial of all issues so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Publix respectfully requests that this Court enter an order
awarding Publix the following relief:
a. A judgment that Defendants’ along with their officers, agents, servants,
affiliates, employees, related companies, attorneys, and those in privity
or acting in concert with Defendants, be preliminarily and permanently
enjoined from the following:
1. Using the Infringing marks and any confusing and deceptively
similar mark to the Single-P Marks alone or in combination with
any words, names, or symbols, to offer products and/or services
similar to those provided by Publix;
21
2. Using any confusingly similar mark or engaging in any other
conduct that is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake, deceive,
or otherwise mislead the public into believing that Defendants or
their products or services are in some way connected to Publix;
3. Engaging in any activity that infringes Publix’s rights in its Single-
P Marks;
4. Engaging in any activity that further dilutes Publix’s rights in its
Single-P Marks; and
5. Engaging in any activity constituting unfair competition with
Publix;
b. That pursuant to the powers granted this Court under 15 U.S.C. § 1118,
the Court issue an order directing Defendants to cease all use of the
Infringing Marks, including by removing all Infringing Marks from all
websites, social media accounts, and also destroying all products,
promotional items, clothing, displays, labels, signs, circulars,
packages/packaging, wrappers, advertisements, signs, catalogs, and
other materials in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control that
display or use the Infringing Marks;
c. That Publix recovers its damages resulting from Defendants’
infringement, unfair competition, and other wrongful conduct described
herein;
22
d. That Publix recovers its damages for injury to the Single-P Marks
resulting from Defendants’ use of the Infringing Marks;
e. That Publix recovers Defendants’ wrongful profits, if any, from
Defendants’ infringement, unfair competition, and other wrongful
conduct described herein;
f. That Defendants be directed to file with this Court within thirty (30) days
after the entry of any injunction in this cause a written statement under
oath setting forth in detail the manner in which Defendants have
complied with the injunction;
g. That, pursuant to the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §1117, reasonable
attorneys’ fees be awarded to Publix.
h. That Publix recovers its costs in this action as well as pre- and post-
judgment interest; and
i. That Publix recovers such other and further relief as the Court may deem
appropriate.
23
October 13, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
/s/ Anthony J. Palermo

Justin S. Cohen
PHV application forthcoming
State Bar No. 24078356
[email protected]
Lead Counsel (per Local Rule 2.02)
Dina W. McKenney
PHV application forthcoming
State Bar No. 24092809
[email protected]
One Arts Plaza
1722 Routh St., Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
214.969.1700
214.969.1751 (Fax)
Anthony J. Palermo
Florida Bar No. 98716
[email protected]
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 4100
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 227-8500
Facsimile: (813) 229-0134
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
PUBLIX ASSET MANAGEMENT
COMPANY AND PUBLIX SUPER
MARKETS, INC.
24

Publix Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Publix Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:21-cv-02404-MSS-TGW Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 1 of 24 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PUBLIX ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY

(collectively, “Publix”) file this Original Complaint against Defendants Pharmapacks,

trademarks through their use of a confusingly similar mark, as shown below:

Publix’s Registered Trademark Defendants’ Infringing Mark

Publix files this Complaint against Defendants for trademark infringement,

principal place of business is in Lakeland, Florida.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pharmapacks, LLC is a New

York company with an address of 1516 Motor Pkwy, Hauppauge, NY 11788.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Packable Holdings, LLC is a

Delaware company with an address of 1516 Motor Pkwy, Hauppauge, NY 11788.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This is a trademark infringement action brought pursuant to the

Code § 1051 et seq. with a supplemental state law claim

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because

continuous, systematic, and substantial.

7. On information and belief, Defendants advertise and market their goods

8. Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendants import, sell, and

distribute their products in the State of Florida and in this District.

9. This Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants does not offend

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), Defendants are deemed to reside within

this District for purposes of venue.

11. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

PUBLIX AND ITS SINGLE-P TRADEMARKS

is the largest and fastest-growing employee-owned company in the United States.

stores, and has more than 225,000 employees.

14. Publix has over 800 stores across Florida.

16. Publix is currently planning to open new stores in Kentucky as well.

17. Publix is one of the 10 largest-volume supermarket chains in the country

with 2019 retail sales of over $38 billion.

18. Publix Asset Management Company is related to Publix Super Markets,

that prominently feature the letter “P” in sans serif type:

Registration Nos. Mark

Registration Nos. Mark

are attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.

been in full force and effect and is valid in all respects.

22. Registration Nos. 1,794,016; 4,355,392; 4,844,271; 4,682,412; 4,685,090;

4,509,543; and 4,851,084 are incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065.

with Publix’s goods and services.

the-counter medicine, health products, vitamins, minerals, herbs, nutritional

supplements, homeopathic remedies, foods and beverages, sundries, cosmetics, skin

for personal use.

and pharmacy-related services, including prescription pharmaceuticals, vaccinations,

“body care specialists” to advise customers on health/wellness supplements, and walk-

1,250 retail grocery stores.

products under the Single-P Marks.

advertising in print, television, online, and outdoor advertising and marketing

pharmacy services and retail grocery store services.

health products, vitamins, minerals, herbs, nutritional supplements, homeopathic

website (at www.publix.com), and home delivery of these products is available.

DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES

36. Defendants describe themselves as an enablement platform and retail

37. Defendants own and operate an ecommerce website at

www.pharmapacks.com where they offer health and beauty products to consumers.

Below is an image of the home page of their website:

38. Defendants, via their website at www.pharmapacks.com, market and sell

goods directly to consumers, including Florida residents.

39. Defendants are also a third-party seller of products through companies

41. The Chief Strategy Officer of Pharmapacks describes Defendants as “a

large marketplace seller.” 1

42. Via their website at www.pharmapacks.com, and via third-party websites