Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. louisvuittonreads.com
0:16-cv-60561
S.D. Fla.Apr 7, 2016Background
- Louis Vuitton Malletier sued nine individuals/associations (March 2016) alleging sale of counterfeit goods and use of confusingly similar domain names and marks.
- Plaintiff sought and obtained an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing transfer/holding of defendants’ domain names, redirecting site traffic to the case filings, and restraining use of Louis Vuitton marks. A $10,000 bond was required.
- TRO issued without notice based on risk defendants could quickly move domain registrations and frustrate relief. Defendants were later given notice, a deadline to respond, and a preliminary-injunction hearing date.
- Defendants did not respond or appear at the preliminary-injunction hearing. Plaintiff relied on sworn declarations in support of the motion.
- Plaintiff asserted claims for trademark counterfeiting and infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114), false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), cybersquatting (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)), and related common-law claims.
- The Court concluded Plaintiff proved the four preliminary-injunction factors and converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction, keeping all TRO provisions in place while the case proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on trademark infringement/counterfeiting | Defendants sold goods bearing unauthorized, infringing Louis Vuitton marks causing consumer confusion. | No response from defendants. | Court found substantial likelihood of success on federal and common-law trademark claims. |
| Cybersquatting (bad-faith domain registration) | Some defendants incorporated Louis Vuitton trademark into domain names with bad-faith intent to profit. | No response from defendants. | Court found substantial likelihood of success on cybersquatting claim under §1125(d). |
| Irreparable harm | Continued infringement damages Louis Vuitton's reputation, goodwill, and enables unjust enrichment. | No response from defendants. | Court found irreparable injury would result absent injunction. |
| Balance of harms & public interest | Plaintiffs have greater harm (no right to sell counterfeit goods); public interest favors preventing consumer deception. | No response from defendants. | Court held balance favors plaintiff and injunction serves public interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (sets the four-factor preliminary injunction standard cited by the court)
- Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 1994) (explains burden of persuasion for extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunction)
- McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 1998) (discusses standards applicable to trademark preliminary injunctions)