Romeo & Juliette Laser Hair Removal, Inc. v. Assara I LLC
679 F. App'x 33
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- R&J (Romeo & Juliette Laser Hair Removal, Inc.) sued Assara I LLC and Will Shuman for common-law and Lanham Act claims of unfair competition, disparagement, and defamation based on online postings.
- The district court granted summary judgment to R&J and entered a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from making false, misleading, defamatory, or disparaging statements about R&J; awarded attorneys’ fees and other sanctions.
- Defendants appealed, arguing lack of present or future injury (posts ended in 2009 and Assara closed in 2015), mootness, and that the injunction was overbroad and violated the First Amendment.
- The record showed Assara remained an active business entity, maintained a website, and defendants had discussed purchasing equipment, supporting a realistic risk of recurrence.
- Defendants’ post-filing covenant was unsigned/notary-defective and came after summary judgment motion; defendants had denied responsibility for postings and counsel had been sanctioned for misrepresentations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injunctive relief — standing/irreparable harm | R&J needed prospective relief because defendants could resume defamatory conduct | No present/future injury: postings stopped and Assara closed | Injunction proper — risk of recurrence supported by active registration, website, and conduct; defendants’ assurances insufficient |
| Mootness | Relief not moot because recurrence possible and covenant defective | Covenant and cessation of activity moot the claim | Not moot — covenant unreliable, misdated/untimely, did not make recurrence "absolutely clear" |
| Unclean hands / laches defenses | R&J’s unrelated alleged review-inflation not bar equitable relief; delay did not prejudice defendants | R&J acted uncleanly; undue delay bars relief | Rejected — alleged misconduct unrelated; defendants not prejudiced by delay |
| Scope & First Amendment challenge | Injunction prohibits false/misleading/defamatory speech and enforces defendants’ covenant | Overbroad/vague; no time limit; binds successors/assigns; infringes speech rights | Upheld — restrictions narrow (target false/misleading commercial speech), duration justified by conduct, successors language acceptable to prevent circumvention |
| Attorneys’ fees | Fees appropriate for Lanham Act violation and sanctions | Defendants argued error but failed to meaningfully brief issue | Affirmed — defendants waived meaningful challenge by inadequate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 808 F.3d 118 (2d Cir.) (standards for reviewing injunction and related legal questions)
- Aegis Ins. Servs., Inc. v. 7 World Trade Co., L.P., 737 F.3d 166 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment issues)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (U.S.) (four-factor test for permanent injunctions)
- Mhany Mgmt., Inc. v. County of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581 (2d Cir.) (mootness and requirement that defendant make it "absolutely clear" that conduct will not recur)
- Safelite Group, Inc. v. Jepsen, 764 F.3d 258 (2d Cir.) (commercial speech restriction on false or misleading speech permissible)
- Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., 673 F.3d 192 (3d Cir.) (parties can waive First Amendment challenges by consenting to decrees restricting speech)
- In re Refco Inc., 505 F.3d 109 (2d Cir.) (consent to relief waives certain objections)
- Patsy’s Italian Restaurant, Inc. v. Banas, 658 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.) (standard for awarding attorneys’ fees under Lanham Act)
- ProFitness Physical Therapy Ctr. v. Pro-Fit Orthopedic & Sports Physical Therapy P.C., 314 F.3d 62 (2d Cir.) (laches requires prejudice resulting from delay)
- Dunlop-McCullen v. Local 1-S, AFL-CIO-CLC, 149 F.3d 85 (2d Cir.) (unclean hands requires misconduct related to the claim)
- ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735 (10th Cir.) (post-trial contempt/support for long-term injunctions)
- New York ex rel. Vacco v. Operation Rescue Nat’l, 80 F.3d 64 (2d Cir.) (injunctions may bind successors and assigns to prevent circumvention)