Fanatics, LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations
1:24-cv-24920
| S.D. Fla. | May 22, 2025Background
- Fanatics, LLC filed a trademark infringement and counterfeiting suit in the Southern District of Florida against 31 defendants operating commercial websites allegedly selling counterfeit goods using Fanatics’ marks.
- Plaintiff alleged violations under the Lanham Act (trademark counterfeiting/infringement and false designation of origin) and related common law claims.
- Defendants were served through alternative means (email and website posting) authorized by the court but failed to respond or participate in the case.
- Clerk's default was entered against Defendants; Fanatics moved for default final judgment, statutory damages, and a permanent injunction.
- The court’s report and recommendation reviews jurisdiction, liability, and the appropriateness of remedies requested by Fanatics.
- The court recommends granting default judgment, awarding $100,000 per defendant in statutory damages, and entering a permanent injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction | Lanham Act claims confer federal jurisdiction | No participation | Court has subject matter jurisdiction |
| Personal jurisdiction | Defendants targeted U.S./Florida consumers via interactive websites | No participation | Court has personal jurisdiction |
| Liability for infringement | Defendants used confusingly similar/counterfeit marks without authorization | No participation | Defendants liable for all asserted claims |
| Entitlement to damages/injunction | Seeks $100,000 per defendant, permanent injunction for willful infringement | No participation | Statutory damages awarded, permanent injunction granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Frehling Enters., Inc. v. Int'l Select Grp., 192 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 1999) (Likelihood of confusion is key to trademark infringement analysis)
- Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 1995) (Irreparable harm in ongoing trademark infringement cases)
- Burger King Corp. v. Agad, 911 F. Supp. 1499 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (Injunctive relief is primary remedy in trademark cases)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (Public confusion central to infringement analysis)
- Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD Int’l Corp., 263 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2001) (Public interest favors injunctions to prevent consumer confusion)