The Scotts Company LLC v. MiracleGro Marketing
5:19-cv-00266
E.D.N.C.Feb 10, 2020Background:
- Plaintiffs Scotts Company LLC and OMS Investments, Inc. sued MiracleGro Marketing, Dropline Design, LLC, Stephen Toth, and Victoria Toth alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin/unfair competition, dilution, North Carolina unfair/deceptive trade practices, and common-law unfair competition under use of "MIRACLEGRO"/"GRO" marks.
- Defendants were served but did not respond or appear; the Clerk entered default and Plaintiffs obtained default judgment prior to entry of the permanent injunction.
- Plaintiffs own famous common-law and numerous federal registrations for MIRACLE-GRO and GRO-formative marks, many of which are incontestable; they use the marks on fertilizers, soils, plant food, garden tools, irrigation systems, apps, and related goods/services.
- Defendants operated under the name "MiracleGro Marketing" and used MIRACLEGRO/GRO-formative marks on a website and social media to market services related to growing and marketing plants; Plaintiffs never authorized this use.
- The court found Defendants’ use likely to cause consumer confusion and to dilute Plaintiffs’ famous mark, causing irreparable harm for which legal remedies were inadequate.
- The court granted a permanent injunction: enjoining Defendants from using confusing/dilutive marks; ordering destruction and recall of infringing materials; requiring notice to customers/vendors and a sworn compliance report to Plaintiffs and the court within 30 days.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114) | Plaintiffs: Defendants' use of MIRACLEGRO/GRO marks on related services violates federal trademark rights and causes likelihood of confusion. | Defendants made no response/defaulted. | Court found infringement and granted relief. |
| False designation of origin / unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) | Plaintiffs: Defendants’ use falsely suggests affiliation/endorsement, causing consumer confusion. | No response/default. | Court held for Plaintiffs on §1125(a) claim. |
| Trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)) | Plaintiffs: MIRACLE-GRO is famous; Defendants’ use dilutes and tarnishes the mark. | No response/default. | Court found dilution and granted injunction. |
| Remedies / Injunction (§§ 1118, 1116 and equity) | Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction, destruction/recall of infringing materials, notice to customers/vendors, and an accounting/compliance report. | No response/default. | Court issued a permanent injunction and ordered destruction/recall, notice, and a sworn compliance report within 30 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- No reported cases with official reporter citations are cited in the opinion; the ruling is grounded on the Lanham Act and Plaintiffs' trademark registrations.