carlo bay enterprise v. two amigo - trademark order

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) .


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/22

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

carlo bay enterprise v. two amigo - trademark order

Documents