Upload
mark-h-jaffe
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
1/22
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTMI DDLE DI STRI CT OF FLORI DA
TAMPA DI VI SI ON
CARLO BAY ENTERPRI SE, I NC. ,
Pl ai nt i f f ,
v. Case No. 8: 14- cv- 1989- T- 33TGWTWO AMI GO RESTAURANT, I NC. ,ET AL. ,
Def endant s.______________________________/
ORDER
Thi s mat t er comes bef or e t he Court i n consi der at i on of
Pl ai nt i f f Car l o Bay Ent er pr i se, I nc. s ( Car l o Bay) Mot i on f or
Ent r y of Def aul t J udgment Agai nst Def endant s Phi l l i p Lopez,
Wi l l i am Lopez, and Two Ami go Rest aur ant , I nc. ( Doc. # 18) ,
f i l ed on November 20, 2014. For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he
Cour t gr ant s t he Mot i on t o t he ext ent set f or t h her ei n.
I. Background
Car l o Bay i s t he owner and oper at or of Cl ub Pr ana, a
Lat i n- t hemed bar , ni ght cl ub, and r est aur ant i n Ybor Ci t y.
( Doc. # 1 at 9) . I n f ur t her ance of t hi s vent ur e, Car l o Bay
owns t he f ederal and st ate ser vi ce marks f or CLUB PRANA. ( I d.
at 10, 13) . Car l o Bay al so owns t he f i ct i t i ous name Cl ub
Pr ana, under whi ch i t oper at es i t s busi ness. ( I d. at 15) .
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
2/22
Car l o Bay cont ends t hat Def endant s used i t s Prana name
i n r el at i on t o t hei r ni ght cl ub and r est aur ant Prana
Rest aur ant & Lounge wi t hout aut hor i zat i on or per mi ssi on
f r om Car l o Bay. ( I d. at 17) . Car l o Bay aver s t hat Pr ana
Rest aur ant & Lounge ut i l i zes t he same busi ness model as t hat
of Cl ub Pr ana; speci f i cal l y, Pr ana Rest aur ant & Lounge i s a
Spani sh- t hemed bar , ni ght cl ub, l ounge, and r est aur ant l ocat ed
i n Sar asot a, Fl or i da, l ess t han an hour away f r omCl ub Pr ana.
( Doc. # 18 at 3) . Car l o Bay submi t s t hat i t sent Def endant s
t wo l et t er s r equest i ng t hat t hey cease and desi st t hei r
unaut hor i zed use of i t s Prana name. ( I d. ) . Never t hel ess,
Def endant s cont i nued t o operat e Prana Rest aur ant & Lounge.
( I d. ) .
On August 18, 2014, Car l o Bay i ni t i at ed t hi s act i on
agai nst Def endant s f or ( 1) t r ademar k i nf r i ngement , ( 2)
cont r i but or y i nf r i ngement , ( 3) f al se desi gnat i on of or i gi n,
( 4) common l aw unf ai r compet i t i on and t r ademark i nf r i ngement ,
( 5) t r ademar k di l ut i on under Fl or i da l aw, ( 6) t r ademar k
i nf r i ngement under Fl or i da l aw, and ( 7) vi ol at i on of t he
Fl or i da Unf ai r Compet i t i on Act . ( See Doc. # 1) . Def endant s
f ai l ed t o t i mel y appear and r espond i n t hi s act i on. As a
r esul t , on Sept ember 15, 2014, Car l o Bay appl i ed f or Cl er k s
ent r y of def aul t agai nst Two Ami go Rest aur ant . ( Doc. # 9) .
2
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
3/22
Ther eaf t er , Car l o Bay appl i ed f or Cl er k s ent r y of def aul t
agai nst Phi l l i p Lopez and Wi l l i amLopez on Sept ember 19, 2014.
( Doc. ## 11, 12) . The Cl er k ent er ed def aul t agai nst al l t hr ee
Def endants on Sept ember 22, 2014. ( Doc. ## 13- 15) . Car l o Bay
f i l ed t he pr esent Mot i on f or Ent r y of Def aul t J udgment on
November 20, 2014. ( Doc. # 18) . The Cour t has r evi ewed t he
Mot i on and i s ot her wi se f ul l y advi sed i n t he pr emi ses.
I. Legal Standard
Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 55( a) pr ovi des: When a
par t y agai nst whoma j udgment f or af f i r mat i ve r el i ef i s sought
has f ai l ed t o pl ead or ot her wi se def end, and t hat f ai l ur e i s
shown by af f i davi t or ot her wi se, t he cl er k must ent er t he
par t y s def aul t . A di st r i ct cour t may ent er a def aul t
j udgment agai nst a proper l y ser ved def endant who f ai l s t o
def end or ot her wi se appear pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l
Pr ocedur e 55( b) ( 2) . Di r ecTV, I nc. v. Gr i f f i n, 290 F. Supp. 2d
1340, 1343 ( M. D. Fl a. 2003) .
The mer e ent r y of a def aul t by t he Cl er k does not , i n
i t sel f , war r ant t he Cour t ent er i ng a def aul t j udgment . See
Tyco Fi r e & Sec. LLC v. Al cocer , 218 F. App x 860, 863 ( 11t h
Ci r . 2007) ( ci t i ng Ni shi mat su Const r . Co. v. Hous. Nat l Bank,
515 F. 2d 1200, 1206 ( 5t h Ci r . 1975) ) . Rat her , a Cour t must
ensur e t hat t her e i s a suf f i ci ent basi s i n t he pl eadi ngs f or
3
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
4/22
t he j udgment t o be ent ered. I d. A def aul t j udgment has t he
ef f ect of establ i shi ng as f act t he pl ai nt i f f s wel l - pl ed
al l egat i ons of f act and bar s t he def endant f r om cont est i ng
t hose f act s on appeal . I d.
Once l i abi l i t y i s est abl i shed, t he cour t t ur ns t o t he
i ssue of r el i ef . Enpat , I nc. v. Budni c, 773 F. Supp. 2d 1311,
1313 ( M. D. Fl a. 2011) . Pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l
Pr ocedur e 54( c) , [ a] def aul t j udgment must not di f f er i n
ki nd f r om, or exceed i n amount , what i s demanded i n the
pl eadi ngs, and a cour t may conduct hear i ngs when i t needs t o
determi ne the amount of damages, est abl i sh t he t r ut h of any
al l egat i on by evi dence, or i nvest i gat e any ot her mat t er . I d.
II. Liability
A. Trademark Infringement under Federal and Florida
law
Tr ademar k i nf r i ngement i s proscr i bed by 15 U. S. C.
1114( 1) ( a) . That pr ovi si on r eads, i n r el evant par t :
( 1) Any per son who shal l , wi t hout t he consent oft he r egi st r ant
( a) use i n commer ce any repr oduct i on, count er f ei t ,copy, or col or abl e i mi t at i on of a r egi st er ed mar k
i n connect i on wi t h t he sal e, of f er i ng f or sal e,di st r i but i on, or adver t i si ng of any goods orservi ces on or i n connect i on wi t h whi ch such use i sl i kel y t o cause conf usi on, or t o cause mi st ake, ort o decei ve . . . shal l be l i abl e i n a ci vi l act i onby the r egi st r ant f or t he r emedi es her ei naf t erpr ovi ded.
4
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
5/22
15 U. S. C. 1114( 1) ( a) . Thus, t o succeed on a t r ademar k
i nf r i ngement cl ai m, a pl ai nt i f f must pr ove ( 1) t hat i t s val i d
mark was used i n commerce by t he def endant wi t hout consent ,
and ( 2) t hat t he unaut hor i zed use was l i kel y to cause
conf usi on, t o cause mi st ake, or t o decei ve. 1 See Gen. Mot ors
Cor p. v. Phat Cat Car t s, I nc. , 504 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1283
( M. D. Fl a. 2006) ; Di et er v. B&H I ndus. of S. W. Fl a. , I nc. ,
880 F. 2d 322, 326 ( 11t h Ci r . 1989) .
i. Trademark Validity and Unauthorized Use
Car l o Bay pr ovi des t hat i t i s t he r egi st er ed owner of
t he CLUB PRANA mark. ( Doc. # 1 at 4, 7- 8) . Fur t hermore, Car l o
Bay has pr oduced a cer t i f i cat e of r egi st r at i on i ssued by the
Uni t ed St at es Pat ent and Tr ademar k Of f i ce ( I d. at 16) , whi ch
ser ves as pr i ma f aci e evi dence of t he val i di t y of t he
r egi st er ed mar k and of Car l o Bay s owner shi p and excl usi ve
r i ght t o use t hi s mark i n commerce. See15 U. S. C. 1057( b) .
Car l o Bay has al so submi t t ed a cer t i f i cat e of r egi st r at i on
f r omt he Fl or i da Depart ment of St ate f or t he CLUB PRANA mark.
( Doc. # 1 at 17) . I n addi t i on, Car l o Bay never consent ed t o
1 [ T] he anal ysi s of t he Fl or i da st at ut or y and common l awcl ai ms of t r ademar k i nf r i ngement and unf ai r compet i t i on i st he same as under t he t r ademar k i nf r i ngement cl ai m. Gi f t ofLear ni ng Found. , I nc. v. TGC, I nc. , 329 F. 3d 792, 802 ( 11t hCi r . 2003) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) .
5
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
6/22
Def endant s use of t he mar k; i n f act , Car l o Bay sent
Def endant s t wo l et t er s r equest i ng that t hey cease and desi st
t hei r unaut hor i zed use of i t s Prana name. ( I d. at 28- 39) .
ii. Likelihood of Confusion
Pr oof of l i kel i hood of conf usi on i s t he sine qua non
i n act i ons f or 15 U. S. C. 1114 t r ademar k i nf r i ngement . . .
. Fi l a U. S. A. , I nc. v. Ki m, 884 F. Supp. 491, 494 ( S. D. Fl a.
1995) . Det er mi nat i on of l i kel i hood of conf usi on r equi r es
anal ysi s of t he f ol l owi ng seven f act or s: ( 1) t ype of mar k,
( 2) si mi l ar i t y of mar k, ( 3) si mi l ar i t y of t he pr oducts [ or
ser vi ces] t he mar ks r epr esent , ( 4) si mi l ar i t y of t he par t i es
r et ai l out l et s and cust omer s, ( 5) si mi l ar i t y of adver t i si ng
medi a used, ( 6) def endant s i nt ent and ( 7) act ual conf usi on.
Di et er , 880 F. 2d at 326.
Al t hough l i kel i hood of conf usi on gener al l y i s a
quest i on of f act , i t may be deci ded as a mat t er of l aw.
Al l i ance Met al s, I nc. of At l ant a v. Hi nel y I ndus. , I nc. , 222
F. 3d 895, 907 ( 11t h Ci r . 2000) . I n t hi s case, Car l o Bay has
suf f i ci ent l y al l eged t hat Def endant s Pr ana Rest aur ant &
Lounge i s l i kel y t o cause consumer conf usi on. ( See Doc. # 1
at 13) . I n par t i cul ar , wi t h r espect t o t he t hi r d f actor , Car l o
Bay al l eges t hat Def endant s operate a Lat i n- t hemed
r est aur ant , bar , l ounge, and cl ub, t hat uses t he name
6
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
7/22
Prana. ( Doc. # 18 at 6) . Car l o Bay submi t s t hat Def endant s
have i nt ent i onal l y used t he Prana name t o decei ve or
conf use t he publ i c at l ar ge i n [ an] at t empt t o use Pl ai nt i f f s
wel l est abl i shed name and r eput at i on. ( Doc # 1 at 9) . Thus,
t her e i s a st r ong l i kel i hood of conf usi on i n t he pr esent case
because consumer s may associ ate Pl ai nt i f f s Cl ub Prana wi t h
t he Pr ana Cl ub and Rest aur ant operated by Def endant s. See
Babbi t El ecs. , I nc. v. Dynascan Cor p. , 38 F. 3d 1161, 1182
( 11t h Ci r . 1994) .
I n r egar d t o t he f our t h f act or , Car l o Bay f ur t her
cont ends t hat both est abl i shment s cat er t o t he same
cl i ent el e, whi ch coul d l ead consumer s t o bel i eve t hat
Def endant s est abl i shment i s r el at ed or af f i l i at ed t o Car l o
Bay s busi ness. ( Doc. # 18 at 6) . Speci f i cal l y, Car l o Bay
submi t s:
The use of sai d name, by Def endant s, [ has] causedmassi ve conf usi on, mi st akes and decept i on.Pl ai nt i f f s CLUB PRANA i s a popul ar ni ght cl ub andr est aur ant i n Tampa, FL t hat has been operat i ngbusi ness f or over 13 years. Def endant s have and aremar ket i ng vi a r adi o st at i ons, f est i val s, andf acebook i n Tampa and t arget i ng pat r ons i n t he samemar ket i ng ar ea as Pl ai nt i f f s CLUB PRANA. Pat r ons
ar e hi ghl y conf used and under t he i mpr essi on t hatDef endant s busi ness i s anot her l ocat i on ofPl ai nt i f f s CLUB PRANA.
( Doc. # 1 at 13) . Thi s cont ent i on i s suppor t ed by the f act
t hat Car l o Bay s Cl ub Pr ana i s l ocat ed i n Tampa, Fl or i da,
7
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
8/22
whi l e Def endant s Prana Rest aur ant & Lounge i s l ocated l ess
t han an hour away i n Sar asota, Fl or i da. Ther ef or e, t he
l i kel i hood of conf usi on i s appar ent . See Babbi t El ec. , I nc. ,
38 F. 3d at 1179 ( [ A] l i kel i hood of conf usi on can be f ound as
a mat t er of l aw i f t he def endant i nt ended t o der i ve benef i t
f r omt he pl ai nt i f f s t r ademar k. ) . Accor di ngl y, Car l o Bay has
met i t s bur den as t o i t s cl ai ms f or t r ademar k i nf r i ngement
under Feder al and Fl or i da l aw.
B. Contributory Infringement
I n or der t o pr evai l on a cl ai m f or cont r i but or y
i nf r i ngement , t her e must be a cont r i but i on t o a di r ect
t r ademar k i nf r i ngement or . . . a knowi ng par t i ci pat i on i n
a di r ect t r ademar k i nf r i ngement . Opt i um Tech. , I nc. v.
Henkel Consumer Adhesi ves, I nc. , 496 F. 3d 1231, 1246 (11t h
Ci r . 2007) . I n t he pr esent mat t er , Car l o Bay pr ovi des t hat
Def endant s Phi l i p and Wi l l i am Lopez had not i ce of t hei r
i nf r i ngi ng act i vi t i es by way of t he mul t i pl e cease and desi st
l et t er s sent by Pl ai nt i f f . ( Doc. # 1 at 6- 7) . I t f ur t her
al l eges t hat , as Pr esi dent and Vi ce Pr esi dent of Two Ami go,
t he Lopez s woul d have chosen t o use t he Prana name t hereby
cont r i but i ng t o di r ect t r ademar k i nf r i ngement . ( Doc. # 18 at
5; see Doc. # 1 at 9- 10) . Fi nal l y, Car l o Bay aver s t hat Phi l i p
and Wi l l i am Lopez act ed i n bl at ant di sr egar d wi t h knowl edge
8
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
9/22
of t hei r i nf r i ngi ng act i vi t i es. ( I d. ) . Upon consi der at i on,
t he Cour t f i nds t hat Car l o Bay has suf f i ci ent l y al l eged i t s
cl ai m f or cont r i but or y i nf r i ngement .
C. False Designation of Origin
[A] f al se desi gnat i on of or i gi n cl ai m . . . pr oscr i bes
t he behavi or of passi ng of f or pal mi ng of f , whi ch occur s
when a pr oducer mi sr epr esent s hi s own goods or servi ces as
someone el se s. Cust omMf g. & Eng r . , I nc. v. Mi dway Ser vs. ,
I nc. , 508 F. 3d 641, 647 ( 11t h Ci r . 2007) ( i nt er nal quot at i on
omi t t ed) . To est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case under 1125( a) ,
a pl ai nt i f f must show ( 1) t hat t he pl ai nt i f f had enf or ceabl e
t r ademark r i ght s i n t he mark or name, and ( 2) t hat t he
def endant made unaut hor i zed use of i t such t hat consumers
wer e l i kel y t o conf use t he t wo. I d. As di scussed above, t he
Cour t f i nds t hat Car l o Bay has suf f i ci ent l y al l eged bot h t hat
i t had enf orceabl e t r ademark r i ght s i n t he CLUB PRANA mark
and t hat Def endant s unaut hor i zed use i s l i kel y t o l ead t o
conf usi on. ( See Doc. # 1 at 4- 5, 13) . Ther ef or e, Car l o Bay
has suf f i ci ent l y pl ed a cl ai mf or f al se desi gnat i on of or i gi n.
D. Trademark Dilution under Florida Law
A pl ai nt i f f establ i shes a cl ai m f or di l ut i on under
Fl or i da l aw wher e a desi gnat i on r esembl es t he hi ghl y
di st i nct i ve mar k of anot her i n a manner l i kel y to cause a
9
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
10/22
r educt i on i n t he di st i nct i veness of t he ot her ' s mar k or
t ar ni shes t he i mages associ at ed wi t h t he ot her ' s mar k.
Gr eat S. Bank v. Fi r st S. Bank, 625 So. 2d 463, 470 ( Fl a.
1993) ; see Fl a. St at . 495. 151. I n maki ng t hi s det er mi nat i on,
t he cour t wi l l l ook t o t he di st i nct i veness of t he t wo ser vi ces
or pr oduct s, t he dur at i on and extent of i t s use and
adver t i si ng, and t he degr ee of r ecogni t i on by pr ospect i ve
pur chaser s. I d.
I n i t s Compl ai nt , Car l o Bay cont ends t hat Def endant s
are usi ng a name t hat r esembl es Pl ai nt i f f s CLUB PRANA and
[ ar e] adver t i si ng r est aur ant and cl ub ser vi ces whi ch [ ar e]
t he same regi st er ed ser vi ces of Pl ai nt i f f s CLUB PRANA.
( Doc. # 1 at 12) . Car l o Bay f ur t her aver s t hat Def endant s
use of Pr ana Rest aur ant & Lounge i s a r epr oduct i on, copy
and i mi t at i on of Car l o Bay s mar k. ( I d. ) . As di scussed above,
Car l o Bay submi t s t hat Pl ai nt i f f s CLUB PRANA i s a popul ar
ni ght cl ub and rest aur ant i n Tampa, FL t hat has been oper at i ng
busi ness f or over 13 years. Def endant s have and are market i ng
vi a radi o stat i ons, f est i val s, and f acebook i n Tampa and
t ar get i ng pat r ons i n t he same mar ket i ng ar ea as Pl ai nt i f f s
CLUB PRANA. ( I d. at 13) . Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat
t hese al l egat i ons est abl i sh t hat Def endant s vi ol at ed Fl a.
10
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
11/22
St at . 495. 151, and t hus Car l o Bay pr evai l s on i t s di l ut i on
cl ai m.
E. Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Fi nal l y, Car l o Bay asser t s a cl ai m agai nst Def endant s
under Fl or i da s Decept i ve and Unf ai r Tr ade Pr act i ces Act . See
Fl a. St at . 501. 201. The Fl or i da Legi sl at ur e enact ed t he
FDUTPA t o pr ot ect agai nst any [ u] nf ai r methods of
compet i t i on, unconsci onabl e act s or pr act i ces, and unf ai r or
decept i ve act s or pr act i ces i n t he conduct of any t r ade or
commer ce. Fl a. St at . 501. 204( 1) ; see al so Bavar o Pal ace,
S. A. v. Vacat i on Tour s, I nc. , 203 F. App x 252, 256 ( 11t h Ci r .
2006) . To st at e a cl ai munder FDUTPA, a pl ai nt i f f must al l ege:
( 1) a decept i ve act or unf ai r pr act i ce; ( 2) causat i on; and
( 3) act ual damages. Rol l i ns, I nc. v. But l and, 951 So. 2d 860,
869 ( Fl a. 2d DCA 2006) .
I n i t s Compl ai nt , Car l o Bay st at es t hat Def endant s
act i ons const i t ut e unf ai r met hods of compet i t i on and unf ai r
or decept i ve pr act i ces i n vi ol at i on of t he Act . ( Doc. # 1 at
13) . Car l o Bay submi t s t hat , i n tur n, Def endant s wr ongf ul
act i vi t i es have caused . . . i r r epar abl e i nj ur y and ot her
damage t o Pl ai nt i f f s busi ness, r eput at i on and good wi l l i n
i t s CLUB PRANA mar k. ( I d. ) . These al l egat i ons coupl ed wi t h
11
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
12/22
t hose pr evi ousl y out l i ned est abl i sh t hat Def endant s vi ol at ed
Fl a. St at . 501. 204.
III. Permanent Injunction
Under t r adi t i onal equi t abl e pr i nci pl es, a pl ai nt i f f
seeki ng a permanent i nj unct i on must demonst r ate ( 1) i t has
suf f er ed an i r r epar abl e i nj ur y; ( 2) r emedi es avai l abl e at
l aw, such as monet ary damages, ar e i nadequat e t o compensat e
f or t hat i nj ur y; ( 3) consi der i ng t he bal ance of har dshi ps
bet ween t he pl ai nt i f f and def endant , a remedy i n equi t y i s
war r ant ed; and ( 4) t he publ i c i nt er est woul d not be di sserved
by a per manent i nj unct i on. Angel Fl i ght of Ga. , I nc. v. Angel
Fl i ght Am. , I nc. , 522 F. 3d 1200, 1208 ( 11t h Ci r . 2008) .
[ I ] n or di nar y t r ademar k i nf r i ngement act i ons[ , ]
compl et e i nj unct i ons agai nst t he i nf r i ngi ng par t y ar e t he
or der of t he day. The r eason i s si mpl e: t he publ i c deserves
not t o be l ed ast r ay by the use of i nevi t abl y conf usi ng mar ks.
. . . I d. at 1209. Fur t her mor e, t he El event h Ci r cui t has
not ed t hat [ i ] t i s gener al l y r ecogni zed i n t r ademar k
i nf r i ngement cases t hat ( 1) t her e i s no[ ] adequat e r emedy at
l aw t o r edr ess i nf r i ngement and ( 2) i nf r i ngement by i t s nat ur e
causes i r r epar abl e har m. Tal l y- Ho, I nc. v. Coast Cmt y. Col l .
Di st . , 889 F. 2d 1018, 1029 ( 11t h Ci r . 1989) ( quot i ng Pr ocessed
12
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
13/22
Pl ast i c Co. v. War ner Commc ns, 675 F. 2d 852, 858 ( 7t h Ci r .
1982) ) .
Ther ef or e, Def endant s and t hei r agent s, of f i cer s,
servant s, empl oyees, successor s and assi gns and al l ot her s
act i ng i n concer t or i n pr i vi t y wi t h Def endant s are her eby
enj oi ned f r om:
( 1) Usi ng, i mi t at i ng and/ or copyi ng Pl ai nt i f f s CLUB PRANA
mar k and f r omi mpr i nt i ng, pr oduci ng, mar ket i ng, sel l i ng,
t r anspor t i ng, di st r i but i ng, movi ng and/ or ot her wi se
ci r cul at i ng any and al l ser vi ces or pr oduct s whi ch bear
Pl ai nt i f f s CLUB PRANA mar k, or any col or abl e si mul at i on
or i mi t at i on t her eof ; and
( 2) Usi ng Pl ai nt i f f s CLUB PRANA mar k or any col or abl e
si mul at i on or i mi t at i on t her eof , i n connect i on wi t h any
pr omot i on, adver t i sement , di spl ay, sal e or ci r cul at i on
of any ser vi ces or pr oduct s, whi ch i n any way mi ght ,
coul d or does f al sel y rel at e or associ at e Def endant s
wi th Pl ai nt i f f .
IV. Damages
Al t hough a def aul t ed def endant admi t s wel l - pl eaded
al l egat i ons of l i abi l i t y, al l egat i ons r el at i ng t o t he amount
of damages ar e not admi t t ed by vi r t ue of def aul t . Rat her ,
t he Cour t det ermi nes t he amount and charact er of damages t o
13
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
14/22
be awarded. Automobi l Lamborghi ni SpA v. Lamboshop, I nc. ,
No. 2: 07- cv- 266- J ES- SPC, 2008 WL 2743647, at *2 ( M. D. Fl a.
J une 5, 2008) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I f a
def aul t j udgment i s war r ant ed, t he cour t may hol d a hear i ng
f or t he pur pose[ ] of assessi ng damages. However , a hear i ng
i s not necessar y i f suf f i ci ent evi dence i s submi t t ed t o
suppor t t he r equest f or damages. I d. ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons
omi t t ed) . The Cour t f i nds a hear i ng unnecessar y t o det er mi ne
t he appropr i at e amount of damages agai nst Def endants because
( 1) t he Cour t has suf f i ci ent r ecor d evi dence t o pr oper l y
determi ne damages wi t hout a hear i ng and ( 2) Car l o Bay s
r equest ed damages ar e st atut ory.
The Lanham Act al l ows a pl ai nt i f f t o el ect t o r ecei ve
st at ut or y damages f or a def endant s i nf r i ngement of a
pl ai nt i f f s t r ademar ks. See 15 U. S. C. 1117( c) . Gener al l y,
upon a pl ai nt i f f s el ect i on t o r ecei ve st at ut or y damages
i nst ead of actual damages, t he Cour t can awar d st at ut or y
damages of not l ess t han $1, 000 or more t han $200, 000 per
t r ademar k i nf r i nged per t ype of goods sol d, of f er ed f or sal e,
or di st r i but ed, r egar dl ess of wi l l f ul ness, as t he Cour t
det er mi nes t o be j ust . Rol ex Wat ch USA, I nc. v. Lynch, No.
2: 12- cv- 542, 2013 WL 2897939, at *5 ( M. D. Fl a. J une 12, 2013)
( ci t i ng 15 U. S. C. 1117( c) ( 1) ) . However , st at ut or y damages
14
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
15/22
may be i ncr eased t o not more than $2, 000, 000 per t r ademark
i nf r i nged per t ype of goods sol d, of f er ed f or sal e, or
di str i but ed, i f a def endant acts wi l l f ul l y. I d. ( ci t i ng 15
U. S. C. 1117( c) ( 2) ) .
I n addi t i on t o t he pr esumpt i on r ai sed by Def endant s
def aul t , 2 Car l o Bay has of f er ed suf f i ci ent evi dence
demonst r at i ng t hat Def endant s i nf r i ngement was wi l l f ul .
I ndeed, t he Cour t f i nds, as di d t he Cour t i n Rol l s- Royce PLC
v. Rol l s- Royce USA, I nc. , 688 F. Supp. 2d 150, 157 ( E. D. N. Y.
2010) , i t woul d be di f f i cul t f or t he cour t t o concl ude t hat
t he i nf r i ngement s wer e anyt hi ng but wi l l f ul . The
est abl i shment and onl i ne mar ket i ng of Def endant s Prana
Rest aur ant & Lounge r esembl i ng Car l o Bay s Cl ub Prana i n
i t s t heme and ser vi ces demonst r at e the Def endant s i nt ent
t o t r ade of f t he r eput at i on and good wi l l t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s
. . . have est abl i shed. I d.
Car l o Bay seeks an award of $2, 000, 000 agai nst
Def endant s, not i ng t hat Def endant s have wi l l f ul l y, and
wi t hout any r egar d f or t he r i ght s of Car l o Bay, cont i nued t o
i nf r i nge on t he Regi st er ed Mar k of Car l o Bay despi t e t he
2 See Pet Med Expr ess, I nc. v. MedPet s. com, I nc. , 336 F.Supp. 2d 1213, 1220 ( S. D. Fl a. 2004) ( [ T] he Cour t may i nf erwi l l f ul ness f r om Def endant s def aul t . ) .
15
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
16/22
i ssuance of mul t i pl e cease and desi st l et t er s. ( Doc. # 18 at
13) . As Car l o Bay cor r ect l y cont ends wi t hi n i t s Mot i on,
[ d] i st r i ct cour t s have wi de di scr et i on i n awar di ng st at ut or y
damages. Pet Med Expr ess, 336 F. Supp. 2d at 1219. The
st atut ory damage pr ovi si on, 1117( c) , was added i n 1995
because count er f ei t r ecor ds ar e f r equent l y nonexi st ent ,
i nadequat e, or decept i vel y kept . . . maki ng pr ovi ng act ual
damages i n t hese cases ext r emel y di f f i cul t i f not
i mpossi bl e. I d. at 1219- 20 ( quot i ng Ti f f any I nc. v. Luban,
282 F. Supp. 2d 123, 124 ( S. D. N. Y. 2003) ) .
Regar di ng t he amount of damages f or each t r ademar k
i nf r i nged, t he Lanham Act does not pr ovi de gui del i nes f or
cour t s t o use i n det er mi ni ng an appr opr i at e awar d. Lynch,
2013 WL 2897939, at *5 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . However , [ m] any
cour t s l ook t o the Copyr i ght Act s anal ogous pr ovi si on, 17
U. S. C. 504( c) i n t hi s s i t uat i on. I d.
Under t he Copyr i ght Act , cour t s consi der f act or s such
as: ( 1) t he expenses saved and t he pr of i t s r eaped; ( 2) t he
r evenues l ost by t he pl ai nt i f f ; ( 3) t he val ue of t he
copyr i ght ; ( 4) t he det er r ent ef f ect on ot her s besi des t he
def endant ; ( 5) whether t he def endant s conduct was i nnocent
or wi l l f ul ; ( 6) whet her a def endant has cooper at ed i n
pr ovi di ng par t i cul ar r ecor ds f r om whi ch t o assess t he val ue
16
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
17/22
of t he i nf r i ngi ng mat er i al pr oduced; and ( 7) t he pot ent i al
f or di scour agi ng t he def endant . I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i ons and
ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ; see al so Cabl e/ Home Commc n Cor p. v.
Net wor k Pr ods. , I nc. , 902 F. 2d 829, 852 ( 11t h Ci r . 1990) ( I n
i t s broad di scr et i on f or det er mi ni ng st at ut or y damages, t he
di st r i ct cour t shoul d consi der bot h t he wi l l f ul ness of t he
def endant s conduct and t he deterr ent val ue of t he sanct i on
i mposed. ) .
I n det er mi ni ng an appr opr i at e awar d of st at ut or y
damages, t he Cour t must st r i ke a bal ance between permi t t i ng
a wi ndf al l f or t he pl ai nt i f f and emphasi zi ng t o t he def endant
t hat t he t r ademark l aws and cour t pr oceedi ngs are not mere
i nci dent al cost s t o doi ng busi ness i n t he pr of i t abl e
count er f ei t t r ade. Gucci Amer i ca, I nc. v. Tyr r el l - Mi l l er ,
678 F. Supp. 2d 117, 122- 23 ( S. D. N. Y. 2008) ; see al so Rol l s-
Royce PLC, 688 F. Supp. 2d at 157 ( [ W] hi l e i t may exceed
act ual damages, an award of st at ut ory damages does not
consti t ut e a wi ndf al l f or pr evai l i ng pl ai nt i f f s . I t does,
however , ser ve a puni t i ve, det er r ent f unct i on. ) ( i nt er nal
ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .
The Cour t f i nds Car l o Bay s r equest f or $2, 000, 000 i n
st at ut or y damages vast l y i nappr opr i at e i n t hi s case.
Al t hough the Cour t bel i eves t hat an awar d at t he mi ni muml evel
17
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
18/22
woul d be i nsuf f i ci ent her e, some of t he f act or s t o be
consi dered mi l i t ate agai nst an award at t he maxi mum end of
t he spect r um. For i nst ance, wi t h r egar d t o t he second f act or ,
t he r evenues l ost by pl ai nt i f f , i t i s unl i kel y t hat t he
Def endant s use of Car l o Bay s t r ademark caused Car l o Bay t o
suf f er l ost r evenue anywher e near t hat amount . Addi t i onal l y,
wi t h r egar d t o t he f i r st f act or , t he Cour t i s unconvi nced
t hat t he pr of i t s r eaped by Def endant s t ot al a number
anywhere comparabl e t o t he $2, 000, 000 r equest ed award. I n
f act , Car l o Bay has provi ded no document at i on of pr of i t s
r eaped by Def endant s or i t s own l ost r evenue. Fi nal l y, wi t h
r egar d t o t he t hi r d f act or , Car l o Bay has pr oduced no evi dence
r egar di ng t he val ue of i t s mar k.
On t he ot her hand, t he Cour t i s mi ndf ul t hat Def endant s
have chosen t o def aul t r at her t han t o cooper at e i n pr ovi di ng
par t i cul ar r ecor ds f r om whi ch t o assess t he val ue of t he
i nf r i ngi ng i t ems pr oduced. Addi t i onal l y, as expl ai ned above,
t he Cour t f i nds t hat Def endant s i nf r i ngi ng conduct was
i ndeed wi l l f ul . These consi der at i ons war r ant an awar d above
t he st atut ory mi ni mum.
Af t er consul t i ng numer ous cases i nvol vi ng an awar d of
damages f or t r ademark i nf r i ngement , t he Cour t determi nes t hat
an award of $30, 000 per t r ademark i nf r i nged per t ype of good
18
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
19/22
of f er ed f or sal e adequat el y compensates Car l o Bay i n l i ght of
t he r el evant f act or s consi der ed above. The Cour t f i nds t hat
such an awar d al so accompl i shes t he obj ect i ves under l yi ng t he
f ol l owi ng r el evant f act or s: t he det er r ent ef f ect on ot her s
besi des t he def endant s and t he pot ent i al f or di scour agi ng
t he def endant . The Cour t i s mi ndf ul t hat [ t ] he st at ut or y
damages provi si on serves t o sanct i on or puni sh def endant s i n
or der t o det er f ut ur e wr ongf ul conduct . WFTV, I nc. v.
Maver i k Pr od. Lt d. Li ab. Co. , No. 6: 11- cv- 1923, 2013 WL
3119461, at *13 ( M. D. Fl a. J une 18, 2013) ( ci t i ng St . Luke s
Cat ar act & Laser I nst . , P. A. v. Sander son, 573 F. 3d 1186,
1204- 05 ( 11t h Ci r . 2009) ) . The Cour t i s sat i sf i ed t hat
st atut ory damages i n t he amount of $30, 000 per t r ademark per
t ype of good of f er ed f or sal e, coupl ed wi t h t he i nj unct i ve
r el i ef pr evi ousl y or der ed, wi l l ser ve as a suf f i ci ent
det er r ent agai nst any f ut ur e wr ongf ul conduct by Def endant s.
For compar i son, t he Cour t has consul t ed the f ol l owi ng
cases: Automobi l Lambor ghi ni SpA, 2008 WL 2743647, at *7
( f i ndi ng a st atut or y damages awar d of $700, 000, r epr esent i ng
$350, 000 per i nf r i ngi ng mar k, t o be appr opr i at e i n a case of
wi l l f ul i nf r i ngement ) ) ; Rol l s- Royce PLC, 688 F. Supp. 2d at
159 ( awar di ng $1, 000, 000 i n st at ut or y damages f or wi l l f ul
i nf r i ngement , r epr esent i ng $25, 000 x 2 marks x 20 t ypes of
19
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
20/22
goods) ; Rol ex Wat ch USA, I nc. v. Li zaso- Rodr i guez, No. 1: 11-
cv- 23986, 2012 WL 1189768, at *4 ( S. D. Fl a. Apr . 9, 2012)
( awar di ng a t ot al of $350, 000 r epr esent i ng $50, 000 per
t r ademark f or each of seven t r ademarks i nf r i nged where
conduct was i nt ent i onal and wi l l f ul ) ; Lynch, 2013 WL 2897939,
at *6 ( awar di ng a t ot al of $800, 000 r epr esent i ng $100, 000 per
t r ademar k f or each of ei ght t r ademar ks i nf r i nged) ; Mal l et i er
v. Car ducci Leat her Fashi ons, I nc. , 648 F. Supp. 2d 501, 505
( S. D. N. Y. 2009) ( awar di ng $100, 000 f or each of f our
t r ademar ks i nf r i nged) ; For d Mot or Co. v. Cr oss, 441 F. Supp.
2d 837, 853 ( E. D. Mi ch. 2006) ( f i ndi ng $100, 000 t o be an
appr opr i at e st at ut or y damages awar d i n a case of wi l l f ul
t r ademar k i nf r i ngement ) ; Gucci Amer i ca, 678 F. Supp. 2d at
122 ( f i ndi ng an awar d of $3 mi l l i on, or $200, 000 per
i nf r i nged mar k . . . appr opr i at e t o accompl i sh t he dual goal s
of compensat i on and det er r ence) ; Bent l ey Mot or s Lt d. Cor p.
v. McEnt egar t , et al . , No. 8: 12- cv- 1582- T- 33TBM, 2012 WL
4458397, *6 ( M. D. Fl a. Sept . 26, 2012) ( awar di ng $250, 000 f or
each of t wo t r ademar ks i nf r i nged) .
Thus, based on t he r el evant f act or s di scussed above and
t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, t he Cour t f i nds t hat st at ut or y
damages i n the amount of $30, 000 per t r ademark i nf r i nged per
20
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
21/22
t ype of good of f er ed f or sal e, f or a t ot al amount of $30, 000,
i s an appr opr i at e, j ust , and r easonabl e awar d.
V. Attorney Fees
The Cour t decl i nes t o det er mi ne an appropr i at e amount of
at t or ney f ees at t hi s j unctur e. I f Car l o Bay i nt ends t o f i l e
a mot i on f or at t or ney f ees i n t hi s mat t er , t he Cour t di r ect s
Car l o Bay t o do so on or bef ore December 22, 2014. Any such
mot i on must be accompani ed by a detai l ed f ee l edger i t emi zi ng
t he hour s wor ked i n t hi s case.
Accor di ngl y, i t i s
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
( 1) Pl ai nt i f f Car l o Bay Ent er pr i se, I nc. s Mot i on f or Ent r y
of Def aul t J udgment Agai nst Def endant s Phi l l i p Lopez,
Wi l l i am Lopez, and Two Ami go Rest aur ant , I nc. ( Doc. #
18) i s GRANTED t o t he ext ent set f or t h her ei n.
( 2) The Cl er k i s di r ect ed t o ent er J udgment i n f avor of
Pl ai nt i f f and agai nst Def endant s Phi l l i p Lopez, Wi l l i am
Lopez, and Two Ami go Rest aur ant , I nc. , in the amount of
$30,000.
( 3) I f Pl ai nt i f f i nt ends t o f i l e a mot i on f or at t or ney f ees
i n t hi s mat t er , Pl ai nt i f f i s di r ected t o do so on or
bef or e December 22, 2014. Any such mot i on must be
21
8/10/2019 Carlo Bay Enterprise v. Two Amigo - Trademark Order
22/22
accompani ed by a det ai l ed f ee l edger i t emi zi ng t he hour s
wor ked i n t hi s case.
DONE and ORDERED i n Chamber s i n Tampa, Fl or i da, t hi s 8th
day of December, 2014.
Copi es: Al l Counsel and Par t i es of Recor d
22