Polaris Industries Inc v. TBL International Inc., 0:19-cv-00291

Background:

Polaris Industries owns the registered RHINO GRIP trademark for a mounting bracket used on ATVs and similar vehicles.
TBL International (doing business as Maggift LLC) manufactured and sold mounting brackets labeled “Rhino Grip” that Polaris alleges are counterfeit and visually identical to Polaris’s product.
Polaris sent two cease-and-desist letters (starting Jan. 2018), then sued TBL in Feb. 2019 under the Lanham Act, Minnesota UDTPA, and related common-law claims.
TBL failed to answer or otherwise defend; the clerk entered default and TBL did not appear at the October 2, 2019 hearing.
The court found liability on Polaris’s Lanham Act and state/common-law claims based on the unchallenged complaint, and concluded TBL willfully counterfeited the mark.
Relief awarded: permanent injunction, destruction of infringing goods, statutory damages of $109,500, attorneys’ fees of $10,574.50, costs of $897.71, and post-judgment interest; prejudgment interest denied.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Liability for trademark infringement (likelihood of confusion)	Polaris: RHINO GRIP is distinctive and registered; TBL’s product is substantially similar and sold to the same consumers, creating confusion; TBL had actual notice.	TBL: no response/failed to defend.	Court: Allegations taken as true on default; majority of confusion factors favor Polaris; infringement proven.
Claim for false designation (Lanham Act §1125) and deceptive trade practices (Minn. UDTPA)	Polaris: same facts that support infringement also show false designation and passing off; injunctive relief appropriate.	TBL: no response.	Court: Likelihood of confusion established; claims stated and relief available.
Willfulness and statutory damages amount under §1117(c)	Polaris: willful counterfeiting; seeks maximum statutory award ($2,000,000) to punish and deter.	TBL: no response/cooperation; no sales records produced.	Court: Willfulness found (notice and continued sales); statutory damages appropriate but $2M excessive; awarded $109,500 based on product value, deterrence, and analogues.
Injunctive relief; destruction of goods	Polaris: irreparable harm via confusion and goodwill loss; destruction authorized under §1118.	TBL: no response.	Court: Permanent injunction granted; TBL must destroy infringing goods and file compliance report.
Attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest	Polaris: TBL’s willful misconduct makes case exceptional under §1117(a) and Minn. law; fees/costs recoverable; seeks prejudgment and post-judgment interest.	TBL: no response.	Court: Fees ($10,574.50) and costs ($897.71) awarded using lodestar; prejudgment interest denied for statutory-damages award; post-judgment interest required.

Key Cases Cited

B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2015) (standard for likelihood of confusion).
Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Prods., LLC, 745 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2014) (six-factor confusion test application).
Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2010) (unchallenged allegations in default are taken as true).
Co-Rect Prods., Inc. v. Marvy! Advert. Photography, Inc., 780 F.2d 1324 (8th Cir. 1985) (false designation of origin and injunctive relief under Lanham Act).
Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Subway.SY LLC, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (D. Minn. 2010) (willful counterfeiting standard and statutory-damages discussion).
All-Star Mktg. Grp., LLC v. Media Brands Co., Ltd., 775 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (factors for assessing statutory damages after default).
Cass Cty. Music Co. v. C.H.L.R., Inc., 88 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 1996) (statutory-damages fact-finding and limits).
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method for reasonable attorneys’ fees).
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (prevailing-market-rate standard for fee awards).
Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546 (1986) (lodestar presumption and fee calculations).