intended to—and, in fact, did—mislead consumers, and that Ocinomled was injured as a result. With respect to misleading conduct, Plaintiffs point to Defendants allegedly unauthorized use of the DELMONICO’S name in connection with Delmonico’s Kitchen, Delmonico’s of Southampton, and the various sauces, none of which are owned by Ocinomled. AC ¶¶ 39-90, 176. With respect to the consumer-oriented nature of that conduct, they adequately allege that it was “likely to cause confusion, cause mistake or deceive as to an affiliation, connection or association of Defendants with Ocinomled and/or as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of Defendants’ products or services by Ocinomled.” AC ¶¶ 177; see also, e.g., AC ¶ 83 (alleging that Defendants “encouraged con Supp. 964, 984 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (<HOLDING>). Defendants’ motion is denied as to
holding mistake of fact exists where broker unintentionally and nonnegligently was unaware of the physical nature of the imported merchandise and customs relied on agent to enter good properly holding that plaintiffs stated a  349 claim where they alleged that defendants imported counterfeit good with the intent to cause confusion and mistake to deceive customers as to the source and origin of the products holding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on merits of  349 claim premised on likelihood of confusion between marks holding that the plaintiffs stated a claim for conspiracy because they alleged an actionable tort holding that although the district court recognized confusion based on similarity of products it failed to give proper weight to the virtual identity of the parties products