What was filed
The docket lists a complaint filed on September 30, 2026, as Document 1, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is PKNY IP & Franchise, LLC v. Grab & Go Convenience LLC and Sajid "Sid" S. Sohail, No. 1:26-cv-08606. The docket lists nature of suit 840 Trademark and cause 15:1127 Trademark Infringement, and it lists no jury demand. It does not show a judgment. The complaint is signed by Daniel I. Schloss of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, and attaches the 2021 settlement agreement, the 2023 letter agreement, and status and title copies of the registrations.
What the complaint alleges
The complaint says PKNY IP & Franchise, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in New York, New York, and that it owns the PAPAYA KING marks. It alleges that the Papaya King brand traces to 1932, when the first stand opened on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It alleges that PKNY IP owns these United States registrations for the PAPAYA KING marks: Registration No. 2,967,772, PAPAYA KING, dated July 12, 2005, for frankfurters; Registration No. 4,005,625, PAPAYA KING, dated August 2, 2011, for restaurant franchising services; Registration No. 4,148,878, dated May 29, 2012, for T-shirts, hats, caps, and aprons; and Registration No. 4,166,602, dated July 3, 2012, for snack-bar restaurant services featuring papaya drinks and hot dogs. It alleges that each of those registrations is incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
On information and belief, it alleges that Grab & Go Convenience LLC is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business in New York, New York. It alleges that Sajid "Sid" S. Sohail is its managing member and, on information and belief, that he personally directed the conduct alleged. It alleges that the plaintiff and its affiliates sued the defendants in 2020 in New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 156000/2020, on claims including breach of contract and Lanham Act infringement, and that the parties resolved that case in a settlement agreement dated July 27, 2021, which Sohail signed individually and for Grab & Go. According to the complaint, the settlement gave Grab & Go a limited, conditional, non-transferable license to use the marks for a single Papaya King restaurant on East 86th Street in exchange for a monthly license fee, terminable for nonpayment after five days' notice.
It alleges that Grab & Go later vacated that location and that, by a letter agreement dated July 25, 2023, PKNY IP approved use of the marks at a replacement store for a monthly license fee of $2,500, starting May 1, 2023, and subject to increase on specified sales thresholds. The complaint says Grab & Go never signed the letter agreement but initially paid the fee and indicated its assent. It alleges that, if the license is terminated for breach, Grab & Go must keep paying the monthly fee for at least two years, and that Grab & Go agreed to bear PKNY IP's legal fees and costs of enforcing the agreement.
It alleges that in August 2024 the defendants stopped paying the monthly license fee as required and then paid only sporadically, a total of nine payments since the end of 2024; that PKNY IP warned the defendants in writing, including by text messages and a May 2026 demand letter from counsel; that Grab & Go did not pay within five calendar days of notice; and that the license has terminated. It alleges that the defendants have kept operating the replacement store as a Papaya King restaurant, with the marks on signage, menus, packaging, and advertising, and on delivery platforms including Seamless, Grubhub, and Uber Eats. It alleges that Grab & Go owes at least $50,000 in unpaid monthly fees, not counting post-termination fees, interest, and attorneys' fees.
The first count alleges trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114. The second alleges false designation of origin and unfair competition under § 1125(a). The third alleges New York common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The fourth, against Grab & Go only, alleges breach of contract and claims damages of no less than $75,000. The fifth, pled in the alternative, alleges unjust enrichment. The prayer seeks a permanent injunction, including against use of the marks in online listings on delivery platforms, removal and destruction of signage and other materials bearing the marks, the defendants' profits and the plaintiff's damages, trebled for willfulness, contract damages, attorneys' fees, and interest. That is a prayer for relief. A court has not granted it.
A complaint is not a ruling
None of this is a finding. A newly filed complaint tells you what PKNY IP alleges about a former Papaya King license and continued use of the marks. It does not tell you that the defendants infringed, competed unfairly, or broke a contract. The court has not decided the case.