S&A Futures, LLC — Series 2 v. Sysco Chicago, Inc., No. 11 C 7629, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2012) (Kennelly, J.).

 Judge Kennelly granted in part defendants’ (collectively “L&P”) motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims in this Lanham Act case in this dispute regarding trademarked bratwurst:

  •  The Court denied L&P’s motion seeking to dismiss claims based upon laches.  While plaintiffs’ (collectively “S&A”) notice letter was well before the various laches periods, there was no allegation in the complaint that L&P’s infringement was continuous since the notice letter, nor was there any specific allegation of infringement before July 2010 when laches would have attached.  Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit cautions that dismissing a complaint based upon laches is an “unusual step.”
  • S&A’s claim for declaratory judgment of ownership of the Krueger Sausage Marks was dismissed.  S&A did not allege that L&P was challenging its ownership, and the claim failed to add anything to the case because the ownership issue would necessarily be decided by other claims.
  •  S&A’s Illinois anti-dilution claim was dismissed because the parties were competitors.
  •  S&A’s accounting claim was dismissed because S&A’s allegations recited the standard without showing the lack of a remedy at law or need for discovery.
  •  S&A’s civil conspiracy complaint was dismissed because the complaint only offered conclusory allegations regarding the alleged conspiracy amongst the defendants.
  •  S&A’s unfair competition claim was not duplicative of its trademark claims because it alleged facts regarding misappropriation of business information which were not alleged in S&A’s trademark claims.