Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Sueros & Bebidas Rehidratantes, S.A. de C.V. and CAB Enterprises, Inc. v. Palimex Distributors Inc., Ashraf Khrawish, and Does 1-10

District Court, N.D. Illinois

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-02171

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SUEROS & BEBIDAS REHIDRATANTES,

S.A. de C.V. and

CAB ENTERPRISES, INC., Civ. Action No.: 1:25-cv-02171

Plaintiffs, Honorable Mary M. Rowland

v.

PALIMEX DISTRIBUTORS INC., ASHRAF

KHRAWISH, and DOES 1-10

Defendants.

AGREED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Sueros & Bebidas Rehidratantes S.A. de C.V. and CAB Enterprises, Inc.
(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Palimex Distributors Inc. have consented to entry of a final judgment
and permanent injunction, and respectfully request that the Court enter the Final Judgment in the
agreed form which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Date: February 24, 2026 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Neal J. McLaughlin__________ /s/ Adam E. Urbanczyk_________

Neal J. McLaughlin Adam E. Urbanczyk

ALSTON & BIRD LLP AU LLC

90 Park Ave 444 W. Lake St. 17th Floor

New York, NY 10016 Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: (212) 210-9400 adamu@au-llc.com

Facsimile: (212) 210-9444 Ph: (312) 715-7312

neal.mclaughlin@alston.com

Attorney for Defendant Palimex Distributors
Attorney for Plaintiffs Sueros & Bebidas Inc.

Rehidratantes, S.A. de C.V. and CAB

Enterprises, Inc.

Exhibit A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SUEROS & BEBIDAS REHIDRATANTES,

S.A. de C.V. and

CAB ENTERPRISES, INC., Civ. Action No.: 1:25-cv-02171

 Plaintiffs,                 Honorable Mary M. Rowland               

 v.                                                                  

PALIMEX DISTRIBUTORS INC., ASHRAF

KHRAWISH, and DOES 1-10

 Defendants.                                                         

              [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT                              

1. INTRODUCTION
   
   Plaintiffs Sueros & Bebidas Rehidratantes, S.A. de C.V. (“Sueros”) and CAB Enterprises,
   Inc. (“CAB”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Defendant Palimex Distributors
   Inc. (“Palimex”), to prevent the unlawful importation and sale of foreign-manufactured
   rehydration beverages bearing Plaintiffs’ trademarks. The Plaintiffs and Palimex stipulate to the
   following findings of fact and conclusions of law, and consent to entry of a permanent injunction
   as set forth below. Accordingly, the Court enters the following:

   1. FINDINGS OF FACT
      Plaintiffs are engaged in the promotion, sale, and distribution of Electrolit® branded rehydration beverages marked with their Electrolit® trademarks (the “Electrolit Marks”). Plaintiff Sueros is the owner of the Electrolit Marks and Plaintiff CAB holds an exclusive license to them in the United States. CAB authorizes use of the Electrolit Trademarks only in connection with its U.S. Electrolit® product.
      The Electrolit Marks are registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as U.S. Reg. Nos. 4222726, 4833885, 4717350, and 4717232. The Electrolit Marks are valid, subsisting, and have acquired extensive recognition in Texas and the United States and represent valuable goodwill. Three of the Electrolit Marks, U.S. Reg. Nos. 4222726, 4717350, and 4717232, have become incontestable under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1065 and 1115(b).
      

   Versions of Electrolit® products are sold in the United States and abroad; however,
   Electrolit® authorized for sale in the United States (“U.S. Electrolit®”) is different from the
   version of Electrolit® that are sold elsewhere in the world (“Unauthorized Electrolit”) in ways that
   are significant to customers’ and consumers’ purchasing decisions. For example, packaging and
   labeling on bottles of genuine U.S. Electrolit® contain text written exclusively in English, while
   packaging and labeling applied on bottles of Unauthorized Electrolit contain Spanish. As another
   example, genuine U.S. Electrolit® products contain the unique, U.S. Electrolit® formula, while
   Unauthorized Electrolit contains a different formula. As another example, labels on genuine U.S.
   Electrolit® products identify all ingredients in the product and include FDA-compliant “Nutrition

Facts.” Labels on Unauthorized Electrolit products do not, because those products are only
authorized to be sold outside the United States where different labeling regulations apply. As
another example, labels on genuine U.S. Electrolit® products list a U.S. toll-free number for
customers to call with comments or complaints. Labels on Unauthorized Electrolit products do
not list a U.S. toll-free number because they are not authorized to be sold in the United States. As
another example, packaging on genuine U.S. Electrolit® states that the product is gluten-free and
sweetened with natural glucose, while Unauthorized Electrolit does not include those statements.

As another example, packaging on genuine U.S. Electrolit® uses imperial measurements (e.g.,
fluid ounces) that U.S. consumers are accustomed to whereas Unauthorized Electrolit packaging
uses metric measurements (e.g., milliliters) that international consumers are accustomed to. As
another example, packaging on genuine U.S. Electrolit® does not make health claims regarding
the product because such pharmaceutical-like claims have not yet been approved by the FDA.
Unauthorized Electrolit packaging, by contrast, contains health claims that it treats and prevents
dehydration that comply with applicable regulations in the countries where Unauthorized Electrolit

is authorized to be sold. As another example, packaging on genuine U.S. Electrolit® lists a “USE
BY” date that informs retailers and consumers about the freshness and the quality of the product.
Packaging on Unauthorized Electrolit does not list a “USE BY” date. As another example,
packaging on genuine U.S. Electrolit® includes bottle deposit refund information applicable in the
United States and written in English, while Unauthorized Electrolit packaging does not. Plaintiffs
do not sell, authorize for sale, or cause to be sold within the United States any nonconforming
products containing the differences between Unauthorized Electrolit and genuine U.S. Electrolit®.
Each of the foregoing differences are relevant to consumers’ purchasing decisions and are
material such that use of the Electrolit Marks in connection with the sale of Unauthorized Electrolit

will cause a likelihood of confusion.

Palimex sold Unauthorized Electrolit bearing the Electrolit Marks that were not authorized
for sale in the United States by Plaintiffs. Palimex’s acts began after the Electrolit Marks became
famous in Illinois and the United States.

Plaintiffs have devoted substantial resources to combat and police the sale of unlawful,
mislabeled, and counterfeit product being illegally imported, distributed, advertised, offered for
sale, and sold by infringers and counterfeiters.

3. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of Unauthorized Electrolit violates
the Lanham Act and constitutes Illinois common-law trademark infringement, Illinois common-
law unfair competition, Illinois Trademark Dilution under 765 ILCS 1036/65, an Illinois Deceptive
Trade Practice under 815 ILCS 510, and unjust enrichment if it is likely to cause confusion as to
the source, affiliation or sponsorship of the product. 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1); 15 U.S.C. §
1125 (a)(1)(A); Okwesilieze Women’s Club of Nig. Int’l v. De Okwesilieze Int’l Women’s Club, No.
H-20-2845, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221967, at *18 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2018).

A  gray  market  good  is  a  foreign-manufactured  good,  bearing  a  valid  United  States 

trademark, which is imported without the consent of the United States trademark holder. K Mart
Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 285 (1988). “When dealing with … gray goods, a reviewing
court must necessarily be concerned with subtle differences, for it is by subtle difference that
consumers are most easily confused.” Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A., 982 F.2d 633, 641 (1st
Cir. 1992) (adopted by Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading USA, Co., 112
F.3d 1296, 1301–02 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We are persuaded that the Nestle/OAA test, which finds
infringement if the goods sold by the authorized domestic distributor and the defendant's foreign
goods are materially different, is a sound one . . . .”)). Thus, in gray-goods cases, the “threshold

of materiality is always quite low.” Id. “[T]he existence of any difference . . . that consumers
would likely consider to be relevant when purchasing a product creates a presumption of consumer
confusion sufficient to support a Lanham Act claim.” Id. Material differences may include
differences in the physical or non-physical attributes of the product, packaging, and labeling
differences. Dan-Foam A/S v. Brand Named Beds, LLC, 500 F. Supp. 2d 296, 311 (S.D.N.Y.
2007) (collecting cases); Bayer Corp. v. Custom Sch. Frames, LLC, 259 F. Supp.2d 503, 509 (E.D.
La. 2003) (“Even the use of British English spellings on the [f]oreign [p]roduct instead of
American English spellings is a material difference.” (citing Ferrero U.S.A., Inc. v. Ozak Trading,
Inc., 753 F. Supp. 1240, 1244 (D.N.J. 1991)).

In the present case, Unauthorized Electrolit is materially different from U.S. Electrolit in
some of the ways discussed above. The presence of these material differences creates a likelihood
of confusion resulting from the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of Unauthorized
Electrolit. There is no evidence that the disclosures or disclaimers placed on the packaging of the
Unauthorized Electrolit were effective to dispel any likelihood of confusion or comply with

applicable FDA regulations.

The Lanham Act is “a strict liability statute.” Signal Prods. v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179933, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)).
Accordingly, “ignorance is no defense to violations of the Lanham Act.” Philip Morris USA Inc.
v. Shalabi, 352 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1114); see also N.
Face Apparel Corp. v. Dahan, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206310, at *31 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2014)
(collecting cases).

Thus, as a matter of law, the importation, sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising
of Unauthorized Electrolit in the United States constitutes trademark infringement, false

designation of origin, common law unfair competition, an Illinois Deceptive Trade Practice under
815 ILCS 510 and has resulted in unjust enrichment. In addition, the sale of Unauthorized
Electrolit tarnishes Plaintiffs’ valuable business reputation and goodwill and is likely to blur the
distinctiveness of the famous Electrolit Marks. As such, the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or
advertising of Unauthorized Electrolit constitutes trademark dilution under the Lanham Act and in
violation of the Illinois Trademark Registration and Protection Act, 765 ILCS 1036/65.
As a result of the sale, offering for sale and distribution of Unauthorized Electrolit,
Plaintiffs have been harmed, including harm to their goodwill in the Electrolit Marks, harm to their
reputation, price erosion, and lost sales and profits. Furthermore, Plaintiffs would be irreparably
harmed by continued sale of Unauthorized Electrolit.

Considering the balance of hardships between Plaintiffs and Palimex, a remedy in equity
is warranted. The interests of the public will not be disserved by a permanent injunction. To the
contrary, the public will be served by an injunction to prevent any confusion. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunctive relief.

4. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action;
and

2. Palimex, its owners, partners, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, and the officers,
directors, principals, agents, servants, and current employees of all of them while employed by or
affiliated with any of the foregoing entities and all others in active concert or participation with
Defendants (the “Restrained Parties”) are permanently enjoined and restrained from:
a. Purchasing for resale, selling, distributing, importing, marketing,

advertising, manufacturing or otherwise dealing in the U.S. any Unauthorized Electrolit (as 
defined in the Complaint (Doc. 1 at ¶30);                            
     b.   Using any logo, trade name or trademark confusingly similar to any of the 
Electrolit Marks which may be calculated to falsely represent or which has the effect of 
falsely representing that the services or products of any or all of the Restrained Parties or 
others are sponsored by, authorized by or in any way associated with Plaintiffs; 
     c.   Manufacturing, importing, duplicating, advertising, selling or distributing 

any infringing and/or counterfeit Electrolit product;                
     d.   Infringing any of the Electrolit Marks;                    
     e.   Misrepresenting the existence or nature of any connection, sponsorship, or 
association with Plaintiffs;                                         
     f.   Using any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of any of 
the Electrolit Marks in connection with the publicity, promotion, sale, or advertising of any 

products;                                                            
     g.   Affixing, applying, annexing or using in connection with the sale of any 
goods, a false description or representation including words or other symbols tending to 
falsely describe or represent such goods as being Electrolit® and from offering such goods 
in commerce;                                                         
     h.   Assisting, aiding or abetting any other person or business entity in engaging 
in or performing any of the activities referred to in subparagraphs (2.a.) through (2.g.) 
above; and                                                           
     i.   Engaging  in  assignments  or  transfers,  formation  of  new  entities  or 

associations or utilization of any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise 
avoiding the prohibitions set forth in this order.                   
     j.   For the sake of clarity, nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the 
lawful sale of U.S. Electolit® products by the Restrained Parties.   
3.   Plaintiffs’ claims against Palimex for breach of contract (Count XII), fraud (Count 

XII) and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count
XIV) are dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED:

 Date: 

                               United States District Judge 

AGREED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:

fr)
Chief Executive Officer, Palimex Distributors Inc.