Standard Process, Inc. v. AVC Infinite, LLC
3:18-cv-00849
W.D. Wis.Jan 9, 2020Background
- Standard Process Inc. owns registered trademarks for dietary-supplement products and distributes only through approved Authorized Resellers subject to detailed quality-control rules (including restrictions on unauthorized online sales).
- Defendants (AVC Infinite, A Vitamin A Day, Andrew Chekayev, Irina Peysakhovich) operated Amazon storefronts (e.g., "Vitaminpro," "I & G Brothers") and sold products bearing Standard Process marks but were not Authorized Resellers.
- Plaintiff alleges defendants sold non-genuine, expired, opened, damaged, tampered-with, or commingled products that circumvented Standard Process’s quality controls, causing consumer confusion and reputational harm.
- Defendants were served, failed to appear or defend, and the clerk entered default; plaintiff moved for default judgment and permanent injunction.
- The court found the complaint’s allegations (and plaintiff’s undisputed evidence) sufficient on trademark infringement, Wisconsin deceptive-trade-practices, and tortious-interference claims; it entered default judgment and a multi-part injunction (some provisions permanent; some limited to five years).
- On damages, plaintiff proved defendants’ total Amazon sales of Standard Process products ($35,114.55) via TriGuardian, but failed to prove the portion of sales that were non-conforming, so the court declined to award monetary disgorgement; plaintiff may seek attorneys’ fees separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trademark infringement / unfair competition (Lanham Act & common law) | Standard Process: owns valid marks; defendants used marks in commerce to sell materially different/non‑genuine goods, causing consumer confusion and diluting mark value. | Defendants: no response (defaulted). | Court: Accepting complaint as true, found infringement and unfair competition; default judgment for plaintiff. |
| Wisconsin deceptive trade practices (Wis. Stat. § 100.18) | Standard Process: defendants knowingly misrepresented goods as genuine, profited, and caused consumer reliance and harm. | Defendants: no response (defaulted). | Court: Complaint states claim; deceptive-practices liability found. |
| Tortious interference with contracts | Standard Process: had reseller contracts forbidding resale; defendants knowingly induced breaches by buying from resellers to resell. | Defendants: no response (defaulted). | Court: Elements met; tortious interference found. |
| Remedies: injunction and monetary relief (profits/disgorgement) | Standard Process: irreversible harm warrants permanent injunction and disgorgement of defendants' profits shown by sales data. | Defendants: no response (defaulted). | Court: Granted injunctive relief (permanent and five‑year prohibitions, plus removal/record preservation obligations). Denied monetary award because plaintiff failed to prove what portion of sales were non‑conforming; total sales data admitted but insufficient to apportion non‑genuine sales. Plaintiff may seek attorney fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- VLM Food Trading Int’l, Inc. v. Ill. Trading Co., 811 F.3d 247 (7th Cir.) (default-judgment principles and accepting well-pleaded allegations as true)
- Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7th Cir.) (default-judgment standard)
- Zino Davidoff SA v. CVS Corp., 571 F.3d 238 (2d Cir.) (goods sold outside quality controls are not genuinely branded goods)
- Shell Oil Co. v. Comm. Petro., Inc., 928 F.2d 104 (4th Cir.) (manufacturer control of quality is central to trademark genuineness)
- Warner-Lambert Co. v. Northside Dev. Corp., 86 F.3d 3 (2d Cir.) (trademark owner may enjoin resales outside legitimate quality-control procedures)
- El Greco Leather Prods. Co. v. Shoe World, Inc., 806 F.2d 393 (2d Cir.) (importance of quality control under the Lanham Act)
- WMS Gaming, Inc. v. WPC Prods. Ltd., 542 F.3d 601 (7th Cir.) (plaintiff need only prove defendant's sales with reasonable certainty; defendant bears burden to prove costs/deductions)
- Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400 (9th Cir.) (standard for proving sales with reasonable certainty)
- Duct-O-Wire Co. v. U.S. Crane, 31 F.3d 506 (7th Cir.) (tortious-interference injunction supports protection of goodwill)
- Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir.) (internet sales into forum state support personal jurisdiction)
- Monster Energy Co. v. Chen Wensheng, 136 F. Supp. 3d 897 (N.D. Ill.) (jurisdiction and online storefront infringement precedents)