Vampire Family Brands sues Gallo over vampire capes on APOTHIC wine bottles: complaint allegations

What was filed

The complaint is Document 1, filed October 20, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is Vampire Family Brands, LLC v. E & J. Gallo Winery and Does 1 to 20, No. 2:26-cv-12250. The complaint pleads four counts: false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); infringement of a registered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; inducing trademark infringement; and contributory trademark infringement, the last two under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1)(a) and 1125(a). Vampire Family Brands demands a jury trial. Counsel is Michael Machat of Machat & Associates, P.C. The complaint runs 19 pages. Its exhibits, lettered A through K in the complaint and filed as eleven attachments, are not freely available on the public docket. The same day, the docket lists the civil cover sheet, a notice of interested parties, a summons request, and the AO 120 report.

The parties and the marks

The complaint says Vampire Family Brands, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its main business office in Los Angeles County, California. It alleges, on information and belief, that E. and J. Gallo Winery is a California corporation, describes Gallo as based in Modesto, California, and says Gallo owns the APOTHIC wine brand. Vampire says its claim of right goes back to 1988, when its founder released a wine under the VAMPIRE name, and that the business later expanded into spirits, energy drinks, coffee, and other products.

The complaint lists sixteen registrations. USPTO records list all sixteen as live and owned by Vampire Family Brands, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. They cover VAMPIRE for wines (No. 2,263,907, registered in 1999), glass beverageware, chocolate and coffee, restaurant and bar services, olive oil and balsamic vinegar, and pre-mixed alcoholic beverages; VAMPYRE for distilled spirits and for tea; DRACULA for wine; VAMPIRE SPIRITS; DRACULA'S DAUGHTER; FANGRIA for sangria and wines; VAMPIRO for wine; VAMP for energy shots; and SIP THE BLOOD OF THE VINE for wines and distilled spirits. The complaint marks seven as incontestable, and USPTO records show Section 15 declarations acknowledged for those seven and for No. 3,290,011. The asserted packaging registration, No. 6,869,456, issued October 11, 2022, for wine and alcoholic beverages except beer; USPTO records describe the mark as product packaging comprising a stylized black cape with red lining adorning a bottle, with black and red claimed as features of the mark.

What the complaint alleges

Vampire alleges that it began selling its VAMPIRE cabernet sauvignon with the cape in 2017 through about 250 stores of a national retail chain, and that consumers know VAMPIRE as the wine that comes with the cape. It alleges that Gallo has used capes in sizes ranging from a miniature cape to a bottle-sized cape the same size and shape as Vampire's to full adult capes, that Gallo trade representatives have worn vampire capes to promote APOTHIC red wine, and that Gallo sells APOTHIC with the capes through distributors to retailers, including national grocery chains. It says it has been reported online that Gallo sends out six capes for every twelve-bottle case.

The complaint pleads forward confusion, including that consumers might assume Gallo bought Vampire's brand, and alternatively reverse confusion, that consumers may come to believe Vampire is copying APOTHIC. As examples it points to a wine-trade LinkedIn post praising Gallo for the cape idea, a Facebook post in which an APOTHIC customer used a Vampire Wine hashtag, and a Reddit thread in which a commenter said Vampire brand wine has a better cape. It also cites an Instagram post by a beverage company as showing the accused use. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants acted to take advantage of Vampire's goodwill and to induce retailers to infringe, and it alleges that the infringement is willful.

Relief requested

The prayer asks for judgments of false designation, willful infringement of the registered Vampire Cape mark and trade dress, inducement, and contributory infringement; a permanent injunction against using a vampire cape, or the word VAMPIRE, DRACULA, or similar words, on beverage products, packaging, or advertising; at least treble the greater of Vampire's damages or the defendants' profits, including profits on other APOTHIC varietals; all downstream profits that distributors and retailers made on APOTHIC sold with the capes; the cost of a national corrective advertising campaign producing at least ten times the impressions of the defendants' campaign; attorneys' fees and costs; and continuing jurisdiction to enforce any order.