The opinion of the court was delivered by: Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
S&A Futures, LLC and Kurt Krueger have sued Sysco Chicago, Inc., Real Sausage Corp., L&P Provisions, Inc., and Makowski Real Sausage, Inc., for unfair competition and related claims under the Lanham Act and Illinois state law. L&P has moved to dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims against it, and Sysco has moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint in part. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants both motions in part and denies them in part.
The Court accepts the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint as true for the purpose of resolving the motions to dismiss. See Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Krueger family has manufactured sausages for nearly one hundred years.
From 1915 until May 1997, they did so under the name "Krueger Sausage Company, Inc.," and they identified their products with what they refer to as the "Krueger sausage marks" and a corresponding logo. Kurt Krueger was the president of the Krueger Sausage Company.
In May 1997, Krueger sold his right, title and interest in and to the corporation and the Krueger sausage marks to Abbyland Illinois, Inc. For the next nine years, Abbyland sold meat products using the Krueger sausage marks. During this time, Abbyland authorized Real Sausage and L&P to manufacture meat products and packing material with the Krueger sausage marks and to allow the products' sale by dealers including Sysco.
On May 12, 2006, Abbyland sold back to Krueger its right, title and interest in and to the company's assets, including the right to use the sausage marks. Krueger later transferred these assets to S&A, a limited liability company of which he is the sole member.
On May 31, 2006, Krueger's attorney sent letters to Real Sausage and L&P, stating:
It is my understanding that up to this point, you have been distributing Krueger Sausage on behalf of Abbeyland [sic]. That relationship has now ended. Please forward all recipes, materials, vendor names and customers to Kurt Krueger, immediately . . .
Failure to comply with the above within 24 hours will result in immediate response. As you are aware, any delay can have grave consequences with respect to customer appreciation and, therefore, any delay will have to be regarded as an intentional act, the damages for which will be sought immediately. Any delay and I have been authorized to and must present a petition for a restraining order from the court for relief.
At some point in July 2010, Krueger became aware of a pair of invoices showing that two Chicago restaurants had purchased an item called "Krueger Bratwurst" from Sysco. Later that month, Krueger met with a Sysco representative and asked him verbally and in writing to "cease and desist selling bratwurst under the name of 'Krueger Bratwurst.'" Id. ¶ 92. The letter he wrote stated:
It has recently come to my attention, and I have confirmed that Sysco has been selling a bratwurst under the name of Krueger Bratwurst that was manufactured by Real Sausage Company and distributed by L&P Provisions, both of whom were served letters in 2006 to cease both production and distribution of the Krueger Bratwurst. While it is unfortunate that they have ignored the letter, the situation can be easily remedied by your discontinuing your purchases from L&P and or Real Sausage Company and continuing your purchase of Krueger's Bratwurst through the current authorized manufacturer, New Packing Co. . . . I would appreciate if you could provide me with any information regarding sales of Krueger Bratwurst products from at least May 31, 2006.
On September 21, 2011, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Defendants removed the case to federal court on October 26, 2011.
Defendants*fn1 have moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "When analyzing the sufficiency of a complaint, [the Court] construe[s] it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, accept[s] well-pleaded facts as true, and draw[s] all inferences in the nonmoving party's favor." Fednav Int'l Ltd. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 624 F.3d 834, 837 (7th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs have "stated a claim only if [they have] alleged enough facts to render the claim facially plausible, not just conceivable." Id. "[L]egal conclusions and conclusory allegations merely reciting the elements of the claim are not entitled to [the] presumption" of truth." Virnich v. Vorwald, 664 F.3d 206, 212 (7th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiffs make fifteen claims against defendants: (1) plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment of trademark ownership; (2) defendants violated the Lanham Act by infringing plaintiffs' trademark rights; (3) defendants violated the Lanham Act through false designation of origin; (4) defendants violated the Lanham Act through false advertising; (5) defendants violated the Lanham Act through unfair competition; (6) defendants infringed plaintiffs' trademark rights under Illinois common law; (7) defendants violated common-law principles of fair competition; (8) defendants violated the Lanham Act through trademark dilution; (9) defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; (10) defendants violated the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (11) defendants violated the Illinois Trademark Registration and Protection Act; (12) plaintiffs are entitled to an accounting; (13) defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy; (14) defendants have unlawfully converted plaintiffs' property; and (15) defendants have been unjustly enriched.
In their response to defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiffs ask the Court to dismiss count two against all defendants and to dismiss count fourteen against Sysco. They ask the Court to dismiss counts three, four, and five with leave to replead them as a single count. Finally, they seek leave to amend counts one and eight and replead them under different statutes. Defendants do ...