Mycoskie, LLC v. 2016tomsshoessaleoutlet.us
0:16-cv-61523
| S.D. Fla. | Jul 22, 2016Background
- Mycoskie, LLC (TOMS) owns federally registered trademarks (TOMS marks and ONE FOR ONE) used on footwear and related apparel.
- Plaintiff alleges dozens of anonymous or unresponsive defendants operate commercial websites (Schedule A domain names) advertising and selling counterfeit or infringing goods bearing the TOMS marks.
- Plaintiff’s representative reviewed products from those sites and concluded they were unauthorized, non‑genuine copies of TOMS products.
- Plaintiff filed suit for trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false designation of origin, cybersquatting, and related common‑law claims; an ex parte TRO was entered and defendants were served but did not appear or respond.
- On plaintiff’s unopposed application, the court held a hearing, found the preliminary‑injunction prerequisites satisfied, and issued a broad preliminary injunction freezing domain names, enjoining use of the marks, ordering registrar transfers/locks, and preserving related evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits (trademark infringement/counterfeiting) | TOMS showed registered marks and that defendants sell counterfeit/infringing products likely to cause consumer confusion | No substantive response or defense (defendants defaulted) | Court found a strong probability plaintiff will prevail; likelihood of confusion established |
| Irreparable harm | Continued infringement will cause immediate, irreparable injury to reputation, goodwill, and sales | No response | Court found irreparable injury likely without injunction |
| Balance of harms | Harm to TOMS from counterfeits outweighs any harm to defendants from restraint on sale of counterfeit goods | No response | Court held balance favors plaintiff; restraining counterfeit trade imposes minimal legitimate harm |
| Public interest | Public interest favors protecting trademarks and preventing consumer fraud | No response | Court ruled public interest supports injunction to prevent consumer deception and protect trademark rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2005) (sets four‑factor preliminary injunction standard)
- Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l. Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 1995) (Lanham Act infringement and preliminary relief principles)