Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dirty Dough Countersuit
Dirty Dough Countersuit
870 Page 1 of 7
Defendant.
Counter Claimant,
1
Case 2:22-cv-00318-HCN-CMR Document 99-1 Filed 04/06/23 PageID.871 Page 2 of 7
v.
Counter Defendants.
Dirty Dough LLC (“Defendant”) for its Counterclaim against Plaintiffs Crumbl LLC,
Crumbl IP, LLC, and Crumbl Franchising, LLC (“Plaintiffs”), asserts and alleges as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiffs are in the business of selling cookies. Plaintiffs have hundreds of locations
across the United States and generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year.
the time this action was commenced, Defendant had just three locations and was just beginning
franchising operations.
3. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant were the first, or are they the only entities, to sell:
cookies; warm cookies; frosted cookies; cookies in boxes; cookies in form fitting boxes; cookies
in modern, brightly lit stores; cookies for delivery; cookies in rotating menus; or cookies in any of
4. Plaintiffs’ assertions and allegations that their Trade Dress and Marks are infringed
2
Case 2:22-cv-00318-HCN-CMR Document 99-1 Filed 04/06/23 PageID.872 Page 3 of 7
wholesalers, and companies, who also sell cookies but who were not named in this litigation and
5. Plaintiffs’ Trade Dress and Marks are registered due to their unique specificity, or
7. Plaintiffs have filed similar lawsuits against some other cookie-based companies,
including Crave Cookies, LLC, asserting similar claims as those asserted against Defendants.
9. Plaintiffs’ business growth is driven by its ability to sell and support franchises.
10. Plaintiffs’ ability to sell franchises is negatively impacted by any other franchisor
that sells desserts or cookies, thereby impacting Plaintiffs’ growth and profitability.
11. On information and belief, Plaintiffs have specific requirements for the permissible
distance between one of its franchises and another franchise and seeks lease terms that preclude
12. Plaintiffs have an economic interesting in standing out and preventing competition,
including any company selling desserts within the vicinity of its franchises.
3
Case 2:22-cv-00318-HCN-CMR Document 99-1 Filed 04/06/23 PageID.873 Page 4 of 7
15. Plaintiffs have shown a propensity for filing litigation against competitors who they
allege infringe not only their Trade Dress, but who allegedly also “copy all aspects of [Plaintiffs’]
17. On information and belief, Plaintiffs’ franchise specific sales are negatively
18. Plaintiffs and Defendant had a business relationship that predated Plaintiffs lawsuit,
19. Plaintiffs’ claims for infringement of its alleged intellectual property lack merit and
20. For instance, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant’s use of a rectangular box infringes
Plaintiffs’ trade dress. However, Plaintiffs’ own filings with this Court show that Plaintiff has
disclaimed the shape of the box as protected intellectual property. (Dkt. 23-3, Am. Compl. Ex. 3.)
infringe Plaintiffs’ intellectual property because they are allegedly similar to photographs Plaintiffs
have posted. In reality, Defendant posted the allegedly infringing photographs before Plaintiffs
4
Case 2:22-cv-00318-HCN-CMR Document 99-1 Filed 04/06/23 PageID.874 Page 5 of 7
23. Plaintiffs’ assertions and allegations only have been made against defendants
Plaintiffs viewed as direct competitors without significant market share and with limited financial
24. Plaintiffs knew, or should have known, their claims against Defendant were
25. Plaintiffs’ meritless and bad faith claims have caused Defendant significant
financial harm because of the uncertainty created by litigation. This harm includes, but is not
limited to:
26. On information and belief, Plaintiffs intended for their claims to harm Defendant
financially, prevent it from growing, and to impair Defendant’s ability to compete with Plaintiffs
27. Defendant incorporates the foregoing responses as if fully set forth herein.
28. Plaintiffs have, and continue to, intentionally interfere with Defendant’s existing or
5
Case 2:22-cv-00318-HCN-CMR Document 99-1 Filed 04/06/23 PageID.875 Page 6 of 7
30. Plaintiffs’ actions have resulted in injury to Defendant in the form of, among others,
lost revenue, slower growth, damage to its reputation, and other direct and consequential damages.
consequential, and punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus pre- and post-
judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper or
appropriate.
BUCHALTER, P.C.
/s/
Douglas P. Farr
Jacob D. Barney
Jack L. Darrington
Attorneys for Defendant Dirty Dough LLC
6
Case 2:22-cv-00318-HCN-CMR Document 99-1 Filed 04/06/23 PageID.876 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this ___ day of April 2023, I served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing through the Court’s electronic filing and delivery system on following:
Case Collard
Tamara L. Kapaloski
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
111 S. Main Street, Suite 2100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
/s/