Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Background
Carlo Bay is the owner and operator of Club Prana, a
relation
to
their
nightclub
and
restaurant
Prana
Defendants
for
(1)
trademark
infringement,
(2)
trademark
dilution
under
Florida
law,
(6)
trademark
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides: When a
default.
district
court
may
enter
default
Liability
A.
on a trademark
(2)
that
the
unauthorized
use
was
likely
to
cause
as
prima
facie
evidence
of
the
validity
of
the
Defendants
use
of
the
mark;
in
fact,
Carlo
Bay
sent
Likelihood of Confusion
likelihood
of
confusion
generally
is
alleged
that
Defendants
Prana
Restaurant
&
alleges
restaurant,
that
bar,
Defendants
lounge,
and
operate
club,
that
Latin-themed
uses
the
name
regard
contends
clientele,
that
to
the
both
which
fourth
factor,
establishments
could
lead
Carlo
cater
consumers
to
Bay
to
further
the
same
believe
that
an
hour
away
in
Sarasota,
Florida.
Therefore,
the
Contributory Infringement
order
to
prevail
on
claim
for
contributory
direct
trademark
infringement.
Optium
Tech.,
Inc.
v.
establishes
where
claim
designation
for
dilution
resembles
the
under
highly
products,
the
duration
and
extent
of
its
use
and
10
to
protect
any
[u]nfair
methods
of
11
ordinary
trademark
infringement
actions[,]
that
[i]t
is
generally
recognized
in
trademark
12
Plastic Co. v. Warner Commcns, 675 F.2d 852, 858 (7th Cir.
1982)).
Therefore,
Defendants
and
their
agents,
officers,
distributing,
moving
and/or
otherwise
Plaintiffs
CLUB
PRANA
mark
or
any
colorable
Damages
Although
defaulted
defendant
admits
well-pleaded
Rather,
13
be awarded.
If a
However, a hearing
damages
for
defendants
infringement
of
14
per
type
of
goods
sold,
offered
for
sale,
or
Carlo
demonstrating
Bay
that
has
offered
Defendants
sufficient
infringement
was
evidence
willful.
infringements
establishment
and
were
anything
online
marketing
but
of
willful.
Defendants
The
Prana
Bay
seeks
noting
that
Id.
an
award
of
Defendants
$2,000,000
have
against
willfully,
and
15
counterfeit
records
are
frequently
nonexistent,
in
these
impossible.
cases
extremely
difficult
if
not
the
amount
of
damages
for
each
trademark
However, [m]any
lost
by
the
plaintiff;
(3)
the
value
of
the
willful;
(6)
whether
defendant
has
cooperated
in
16
determining
an
appropriate
award
of
statutory
costs
to
counterfeit trade.
doing
business
in
the
profitable
678 F. Supp. 2d 117, 122-23 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); see also RollsRoyce PLC, 688 F. Supp. 2d at 157 ([W]hile it may exceed
actual
damages,
an
award
of
statutory
damages
does
not
It does,
damages
vastly
inappropriate
in
this
case.
17
would
be
insufficient
here,
some
of
the
factors
to
be
the
profits
reaped
by
Defendants
total
number
In
Court
finds
indeed willful.
that
Defendants
infringing
conduct
was
18
WFTV, Inc. v.
(11th
Cir.
2009)).
The
Court
is
satisfied
that
previously
ordered,
will
serve
as
sufficient
19
goods); Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. Lizaso-Rodriguez, No. 1:11cv-23986, 2012 WL 1189768, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2012)
(awarding
total
trademark
for
each
of
of
$350,000
seven
representing
trademarks
$50,000
infringed
per
where
2009)
(awarding
$100,000
for
each
of
four
(finding
an
award
of
$3
million,
or
$200,000
per
20
Attorney Fees
The Court declines to determine an appropriate amount of
Any such
(2)
(3)
December
22,
2014.
21
Any
such
motion
must
be
22