Optima Tax Relief, LLC v. United Tax Defense, LLC
8:24-cv-02374
| C.D. Cal. | Jul 10, 2025Background
- Optima Tax Relief, LLC is a Delaware company specializing in tax resolution services, with established trademarks involving the "Optima" mark used since June 2011.
- United Tax Defense, LLC, a California company, began operating in 2023 and allegedly used names similar to Optima’s marks ("Optimum Tax Relief" and "Optimal Tax Relief") in direct competition, leading to consumer confusion.
- Optima sent a cease and desist letter to United Tax Defense, which acknowledged the infringing use and promised to cease such use, but allegedly continued infringing thereafter.
- Optima filed suit, alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.
- The Court entered default judgment against United Tax Defense and enjoined further infringement.
- Optima then sought attorneys’ fees and costs, totaling $51,044.50 based on 87.71 hours billed, under the Lanham Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees | Willful and malicious infringement makes case exceptional under Lanham Act. | No appearance or substantial opposition; only admitted technical issue in response to cease & desist. | Court found willful/malicious conduct; fees justified. |
| Reasonableness of Hourly Rates | Rates are consistent with prevailing rates in the district for attorneys of comparable skill. | None presented. | Hourly rates found reasonable. |
| Reasonableness of Hours Expended | Hours are reasonable, documented, and relate to overlapping legal/factual basis for all claims. | None presented. | Number of hours reasonable. |
| Apportionment Between State/Federal Claims | Impracticable due to identical factual/legal basis for all claims. | None presented. | No apportionment required; full fees awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1984) (fees available under Lanham Act where infringement is willful or malicious)
- Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 1996) (establishes lodestar method for fee calculation)
- Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986) (counsel must justify hours and rates for attorneys’ fees)
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (rates to be set according to prevailing community rates)
- Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2000) (fees under Lanham Act recoverable for work on indistinguishable state claims)