Fendi Adele, S.r.l. v. ALEXANDER OTT
0:16-cv-60618
| S.D. Fla. | Jun 27, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Fendi Adele S.R.L. sued multiple online sellers (identified by Seller IDs) for selling goods bearing counterfeit FENDI trademarks via e-commerce marketplaces (Amazon, eBay, iOffer, PayPal/Amazon payment accounts listed).
- Defendants failed to appear or otherwise respond; the Clerk entered default and they did not oppose the motion for default judgment.
- Plaintiff sought permanent injunctive relief and statutory damages under the Lanham Act (trademark counterfeiting/infringement and false designation of origin) and common-law claims.
- The Court accepted as admitted the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations because of the defendants’ default and found the marks at issue qualified as counterfeit under the Lanham Act.
- The Court entered a default final judgment for Plaintiff, granted a permanent injunction prohibiting sale/use/distribution of goods bearing the FENDI marks (and related acts to evade the injunction), and awarded statutory damages.
- The Court awarded $1,000,000 per defendant under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), ordered immediate turnover of restrained funds from Amazon and PayPal, awarded post-judgment interest, released Plaintiff’s bond, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants infringed and counterfeited Fendi trademarks | Defendants sold goods bearing identical/counterfeit FENDI marks via online stores | No opposition due to default; no defence presented | Court found infringement/counterfeiting; default admissions apply |
| Whether permanent injunctive relief is warranted | Injunction necessary to stop ongoing counterfeiting and future circumvention | No opposition presented | Court granted broad permanent injunction prohibiting use, sale, domain/metatag use, and circumvention |
| Whether statutory damages are appropriate and amount | Seeks statutory damages under Lanham Act for willful counterfeiting | No opposition; no challenge to amount | Court awarded $1,000,000 per defendant under 15 U.S.C. §1117(c) |
| Whether restrained marketplace funds should be transferred to Plaintiff | Funds restrained by Amazon/PayPal should satisfy judgment | No opposition presented | Court ordered transfer of restrained funds within 5 business days and required accounting breakdown |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotton v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 402 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2005) (well-pleaded allegations in a complaint are deemed admitted when a defendant defaults)