Opinion
Case No. 21-cv-60493-BLOOM/Valle
05-06-2021
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, WHIRLPOOL PROPERTIES, INC., and MAYTAG PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "A," Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc., and Maytag Properties, LLC (collectively "Plaintiffs"), Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against Defendants, ECF No. [32] ("Motion"), filed on May 5, 2021. A Clerk's Default was entered against Defendants on April 20, 2021, ECF No. [30], as Defendants failed to appear, answer, or otherwise plead to the Amended Complaint, ECF No. [15], despite having been served. See ECF No. [22]. The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs sued Defendants for trademark counterfeiting and infringement under § 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; false designation of origin under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); common-law unfair competition; and common law trademark infringement. The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants are promoting, advertising, distributing, offering for sale and selling goods bearing and/or using counterfeits and confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiffs' respective registered trademarks within the Southern District of Florida by operating Internet based e-commerce stores under the seller identification names set forth on Schedule "A" attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment (the "Seller IDs"). See ECF No. [32] at 16-17.
Plaintiffs further assert that Defendants' unlawful activities have caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiffs because Defendants have (1) deprived Plaintiffs of their rights to determine the manner in which their trademarks are presented to the public through merchandising; (2) defrauded the public into thinking Defendants' goods are goods authorized by Plaintiffs; (3) deceived the public as to Plaintiffs' association with Defendants' goods and the websites that market and sell the goods; and (4) wrongfully traded and capitalized on Plaintiffs' respective reputations and goodwill, as well as the commercial value of Plaintiffs' respective trademarks.
In their Motion, Plaintiffs seek the entry of default final judgment against Defendants in an action alleging trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false designation of origin, common-law unfair competition, and common law trademark infringement. Plaintiffs further request that the Court (1) enjoin Defendants from producing or selling goods that infringe their trademarks; (2) permanently remove the listings and associated images of goods bearing Plaintiffs' trademarks used by Defendants via the Seller IDs; (3) require the surrender of Defendants' goods bearing Plaintiffs' trademarks to Plaintiffs; and (4) award statutory damages.
Defendants are the Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule "A" of Plaintiffs' Motion, and Schedule "A" of this Order. See ECF No. [32] at 16-17.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), the Court is authorized to enter a final judgment of default against a party who has failed to plead in response to a complaint. "[A] defendant's default does not in itself warrant the court entering a default judgment." DirecTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1127 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Hous. Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). Granting a motion for default judgment is within the trial court's discretion. See Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206. Because the defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well pleaded or to admit conclusions of law, the court must first determine whether there is a sufficient basis in the pleading for the judgment to be entered. See id.; see also Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987) ("[L]iability is well-pled in the complaint and is therefore established by the entry of default."). Upon a review of Plaintiffs' submissions, it appears there is a sufficient basis in the pleading for the default judgment to be entered in favor of Plaintiffs.
The factual background is taken from Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, ECF No. [15], Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against Defendants, ECF No. [32], and supporting evidentiary submissions.
Plaintiff, Whirlpool Properties, Inc., is the registered owner of the following trademarks, which are valid and registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "Whirlpool Marks"):
| Trademark | RegistrationNumber | RegistrationDate | Class(es) / Good(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| KITCHENAID | 2,520,284 | December 18,2001 | IC 037 - installation, repair andmaintenance of hand and standelectric beating and mixingmachines, coffee making machines,toasters, food processors, blenders,clothes washing and dryingmachines, dishwashers, refrigerators, |
| freezers, combinationrefrigerator/freezers, ranges, ovensand surface units, microwave ovens,cooktops, exhaust hoods, ventilatingfans, air conditioners, dehumidifiers,wine cellars, water supply units fordispensing cold water and ice fromrefrigerators, food waste disposers,food waste and trash compactors, icemakers, electrically operated hotwater dispensers, and compressorsfor refrigerators. | |||
| KitchenAid | 2,520,285 | December 18,2001 | IC 037 - installation, repair andmaintenance of hand and standelectric beating and mixingmachines, coffee making machines,toasters, food processors, blenders,clothes washing and dryingmachines, dishwashers, refrigerators,freezers, combinationrefrigerator/freezers, ranges, ovensand surface units, microwave ovens,cooktops, exhaust hoods, ventilatingfans, air conditioners, dehumidifiers,wine cellars, water supply units fordispensing cold water and ice fromrefrigerators, food waste disposers,food waste and trash compactors, icemakers, electrically operated hotwater dispensers, and compressorsfor refrigerators. |
|---|---|---|---|
| WHIRLPOOL | 4,983,312 | June 21, 2016 | IC 011 - water filtration andpurification units and replacementcartridges and filters therefor forrefrigerators. |
| EVERYDROP | 5,232,741 | June 27, 2017 | IC 011 - refrigerator water filters;water filtration pitchers sold emptyand portable water filter bottles soldempty. |
| Image materials not available for display. | 5,921,312 | November 26,2019 | IC 011 - heating, cooling andventilating apparatus, namely,furnaces, gas water heaters,conversion burners, heat pumps, airconditioning units, condensing units,evaporator units, evaporator coils,central humidifiers, central air |
| cleaners, furnace boilers and heatexchangers; Clothes dryingmachines; Refrigerators, freezers,combination refrigerator-freezers;Water softening apparatus andinstallations, air conditioners,dehumidifiers, cooking ovens,cooking ranges, gas and electriccooktops, microwave ovens forcooking and range exhaust hoods;Freezer chests; Water purificationand delivery systems comprisingstandalone water cabinets; Built-inbottled water dispensing apparatusfor hot or chilled water; Domesticwater filtration units; Reverseosmosis units for purification ofwater; Appliances for domestic andcommercial use, namely,combination garment wrinkle andodor remover and garment dryer;Apparatus and appliances fordomestic use, namely, air purifyingunits, air filters; Gas and electricwater heaters; Water conditioningunits, water softening apparatus andinstallations, water coolers, waterchillers, countertop water filtrationdevices, home water filtrationdevices and water faucet filters;Refrigerator water filters. |
Plaintiff, Maytag Properties, LLC, is the registered owner of the following trademark, which is valid and registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "Maytag Mark"):
| Trademark | RegistrationNumber | RegistrationDate | Class(es) / Good(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAYTAG | 5,777,058 | June 11, 2019 | IC 011 - water treatment equipment,namely, water filtration units andreverse osmosis units; watersoftening apparatus andinstallations; water purification andfiltration apparatus and replacementcartridges and filters therefor. |
Defendants, by operating Internet based e-commerce stores under Defendants' respective seller identification names identified on Schedule "A" hereto (the "Seller IDs"), have advertised, promoted, offered for sale, or sold goods bearing and/or using what Plaintiffs have determined to be counterfeits, infringements, reproductions or colorable imitations of the Whirlpool Marks and/or Maytag Mark (collectively "Plaintiffs' Marks"). See Declaration of Patrick Hall, ECF No. [6-1] at 20-24; Declaration of T. Raquel Wiborg-Rodriguez, ECF No. [6-2] at 2; Declaration of Kathleen Burns, ECF No. [6-3] at 4-7.
Although each Defendant may not copy and infringe each of Plaintiffs' Marks for each category of goods protected, Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence showing each Defendant has infringed, at least, one or more of Plaintiffs' Marks. See Declaration of Patrick Hall, ECF No. [6-1] at 20-24. Defendants are not now, nor have they ever been, authorized or licensed to use, reproduce, or make counterfeits, reproductions, and/or colorable imitations of Plaintiffs' Marks. See Declaration of Patrick Hall, ECF No. [6-1] at 11, 18, 23-24.
Plaintiffs' counsel retained Invisible Inc ("Invisible"), a licensed private investigative firm, to investigate the promotion and sale of counterfeit and infringing versions of Plaintiffs' branded products by Defendants and to obtain the available payment account data for receipt of funds paid to Defendants for the sale of counterfeit versions of Plaintiffs' branded products. See Declaration of Patrick Hall, ECF No. [6-1] at 21; Declaration of T. Raquel Wiborg-Rodriguez, ECF No. [6-2] at 2; Declaration of Kathleen Burns, ECF No. [6-3] at 3. Invisible accessed the Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the Seller IDs and placed orders from each Defendant for the purchase of various products, all bearing counterfeits of, at least, one of Plaintiffs' trademarks at issue in this action, and requested each product to be shipped to Invisible's address in the Southern District of Florida. See Declaration of Kathleen Burns, ECF No. [6-3] at 4. Each order was processed entirely online, and following the submission of the orders, Invisible finalized payment for the various products ordered via Defendants' respective payment accounts and/or payee, which are identified on Schedule "A" hereto. See id. Based upon the shipping origin information, most of the packages utilized and/or originated from a domestic fulfillment center, e-commerce shipping partner, warehouse, and/or storage facility during the shipping process. See Declaration of T. Raquel Wiborg-Rodriguez, ECF No. [6-2] at 2. The goods bearing at least one of Plaintiffs' Marks that were purchased and received by Invisible from Defendants via their Seller IDs were transmitted to Plaintiffs' representative for analysis, together with an appropriate Chain of Custody. See Declaration of Patrick Hall, ECF No. [6-1] at 22; Declaration of Kathleen Burns, ECF No. [6-3] at 5.
Certain Defendants blurred-out and/or physically altered the images of Plaintiffs' Marks on the product being offered for sale via its e-commerce store. The product Invisible received from these Defendants bears Plaintiffs' Marks in their entirety. See Declaration of Kathleen Burns, ECF No. [6-3] at 4 n.1.
Defendant Numbers 1-17, 19-24, 26-41, 43-44, and 46-64 operate via the non-party Internet marketplace platform eBay.com, and use money transfer and retention services with PayPal, Inc. ("PayPal"). See Declaration of Kathleen Burns, ECF No. [6-3] at 4 n.3; Declaration of T. Raquel Wiborg-Rodriguez, ECF No. [6-2] at 4.
Defendant Numbers 18 and 45 operate via the non-party Internet marketplace platform, AliExpress.com, and have their payments processed on their behalf using Alipay. Additionally, Defendant Number 45 has its payments processed on its behalf using PayPal, identifying the payee Alipay Singapore E-Commerce, which is the aggregate PayPal account for purchases made via PayPal on AliExpress.com. Defendant Numbers 25 and 42 operate via the non-party e-commerce marketplace platform, Wish.com ("Wish"), which is operated by ContextLogic Inc. ("ContextLogic"). The payee for the orders placed on Wish.com identifies "PayPal *Wish," which is the aggregate PayPal account for purchases made via Wish.com. As such, Defendants' payment information is not publicly disclosed. However, because these financial entities accept and/or process payments on behalf of the individual merchants operating on their respective platforms, the financial entities can tie a particular Seller ID, merchant identification number, and/or store number to a reported transaction and identify the merchant's funds held in sub-accounts within their respective account. See Declaration of Kathleen Burns, ECF No. [6-3] at 4 n.3; Declaration of T. Raquel Wiborg-Rodriguez, ECF No. [6-2] at 5-6.
Invisible has yet to receive the product it purchased from Defendant Number 64's alias Seller ID, hawhi_50. See Declaration of Kathleen Burns, ECF No. [6-3] at 4 n.4.
Plaintiffs' representative reviewed and visually inspected the goods Invisible purchased and received from Defendants through Internet based e-commerce stores operating under their respective Sellers IDs, and determined the products were not genuine versions of Plaintiffs' goods. See Declaration of Patrick Hall, ECF No. [6-1] at 23-24.
Plaintiffs' representative reviewed the detailed web page captures of the product purchased from the e-commerce store operating under the Seller ID, hawhi_50. Declaration of Patrick Hall, ECF No. [6-1] at 23 n.1. --------
III. ANALYSIS
A. Claims
1. Trademark Counterfeiting and Infringement Under 15 U .S.C. § 1114 (Count I)
Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, provides liability for trademark infringement if, without the consent of the registrant, a defendant uses "in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark: which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive." 15 U.S.C. § 1114. In order to prevail on their trademark infringement claim under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) they had prior rights to the mark at issue; and (2) Defendants adopted a mark or name that was the same, or confusingly similar to Plaintiffs' trademark, such that consumers were likely to confuse the two. Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1193 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Longhorn Steaks, Inc., 106 F.3d 355, 360 (11th Cir. 1997)).
2. False Designation of Origin Under 15 U .S.C. § 1125(a) (Count II)
To prevail on a claim for false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), Plaintiffs must prove that Defendants used in commerce, in connection with any goods or services, any word, term, name, symbol or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin that is likely to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendants with Plaintiffs, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval, of Defendants' goods by Plaintiffs. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). The test for liability for false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) is the same as for a trademark counterfeiting and infringement claim - i.e., whether the public is likely to be deceived or confused by the similarity of the marks at issue. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 780 (1992).
3. Common-Law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement (Counts III and IV)
Whether a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademarks created a likelihood of confusion between the plaintiff's and the defendant's products is also the determining factor in the analysis of unfair competition under Florida common law. Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Forrester, No. 83-8381-CIV, 1986 WL 15668, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 1987) ("The appropriate test for determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, and thus trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under the common law of Florida, is set forth in John H. Harland, Inc. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966, 972 (11th Cir. 1983.)."); see also Boston Prof'l Hockey Ass'n, Inc. v. Dall. Cap & Emblem Mfg., Inc., 510 F.2d 1004, 1010 (5th Cir. 1975) ("As a general rule . . . the same facts which would support an action for trademark infringement would also support an action for unfair competition.").
The analysis of liability for Florida common law trademark infringement is the same as the analysis of liability for trademark infringement under § 32(a) of the Lanham Act. See PetMed Express, Inc. v. MedPets.com, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1217-18 (S.D. Fla. 2004).
B. Liability
The well-pled factual allegations of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint properly allege the elements for each of the claims described above. See ECF No. [15]. Moreover, the factual allegations in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint have been substantiated by sworn declarations and other evidence and establish Defendants' liability under each of the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is appropriate.
C. Injunctive Relief
Pursuant to the Lanham Act, a district court is authorized to issue an injunction "according to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable," to prevent violations of trademark law. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). Indeed, "[i]njunctive relief is the remedy of choice for trademark and unfair competition cases, since there is no adequate remedy at law for the injury caused by a defendant's continuing infringement." Burger King Corp. v. Agad, 911 F. Supp. 1499, 1509-10 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (citing Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 1988)). Moreover, even in a default judgment setting, injunctive relief is available. See, e.g., PetMed Express, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d at 1222-23. Defendants' failure to respond or otherwise appear in this action makes it difficult for Plaintiffs to prevent further infringement absent an injunction. See Jackson v. Sturkie, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ("[D]efendant's lack of participation in this litigation has given the court no assurance that defendant's infringing activity will cease. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunctive relief.")
Permanent injunctive relief is appropriate where a plaintiff demonstrates that (1) it has suffered irreparable injury; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; (3) the balance of hardship favors an equitable remedy; and (4) an issuance of an injunction is in the public's interest. eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 392-93 (2006). Plaintiffs have carried their burden on each of the four factors. Accordingly, permanent injunctive relief is appropriate.
Specifically, in trademark cases, "a sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of confusion . . . may by itself constitute a showing of a substantial threat of irreparable harm." McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int'l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1995) ("There is no doubt that the continued sale of thousands of pairs of counterfeit jeans would damage LS & Co.'s business reputation and might decrease its legitimate sales."). Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants' unlawful actions have caused Plaintiffs irreparable injury and will continue to do so if Defendants are not permanently enjoined. See ECF No. [15]. Further, the Amended Complaint alleges, and the submissions by Plaintiffs show, that the goods promoted, advertised, offered for sale, and sold by Defendants are nearly identical to Plaintiffs' genuine products. See id. "The net effect of Defendants' actions is likely to cause confusion of consumers who will believe all of Defendants' goods offered for sale in Defendants' ecommerce stores are genuine goods originating from, associated with, and/or approved by Plaintiffs." See ECF No. [15] at 12.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law so long as Defendants continue to operate the Seller IDs because Plaintiffs cannot control the quality of what appears to be their products in the marketplace. An award of monetary damages alone will not cure the injury to Plaintiffs' respective reputations and goodwill that will result if Defendants' infringing and counterfeiting actions are allowed to continue. Moreover, Plaintiffs face hardship from loss of sales and their inability to control their reputations in the marketplace. By contrast, Defendants face no hardship if they are prohibited from the infringement of Plaintiffs' trademarks, which is an illegal act.
Finally, the public interest supports the issuance of a permanent injunction against Defendants to prevent consumers from being misled by Defendants' products. See Chanel, Inc. v. besumart.com, 240 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2016) ("[A]n injunction to enjoin infringing behavior serves the public interest in protecting consumers from such behavior."). The Court's broad equity powers allow it to fashion injunctive relief necessary to stop Defendants' infringing activities. See, e.g., Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971) ("Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for . . . [t]he essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 321 U.S. 707, 724 (1944) ("Equity has power to eradicate the evils of a condemned scheme by prohibition of the use of admittedly valid parts of an invalid whole.").
Defendants have created an Internet-based counterfeiting scheme in which they are profiting from their deliberate misappropriation of Plaintiffs' rights. Accordingly, the Court may fashion injunctive relief to eliminate the means by which Defendants are conducting their unlawful activities by requiring their listings and associated images be removed and the goods of each Defendant bearing one or more of Plaintiffs' trademarks be surrendered to further prevent the use of these instrumentalities of infringement.
D. Statutory Damages for the Use of Counterfeit Marks
In a case involving the use of counterfeit marks in connection with a sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) provides that a plaintiff may elect an award of statutory damages at any time before final judgment is rendered in the sum of not less than $1,000.00 nor more than $200,000.00 per counterfeit mark per type of good. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(1). In addition, if the Court finds that Defendants' counterfeiting actions were willful, it may impose damages above the maximum limit up to $2,000,000.00 per mark per type of good. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2). Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), Plaintiffs have elected to recover an award of statutory damages as to Count I of the Amended Complaint.
The Court has wide discretion to determine the amount of statutory damages. See PetMed Express, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d at 1219 (citing Cable/Home Commc'n Corp. v. Network Prod., Inc., 902 F.2d 829, 852 (11th Cir. 1990)). An award of statutory damages is appropriate despite a plaintiff's inability to prove actual damages caused by a defendant's infringement. Under Armour, Inc. v. 51nfljersey.com, No. 13-62809-CIV, 2014 WL 1652044, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2014) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Cross, 441 F. Supp. 2d 837, 852 (E.D. Mich. 2006) ("[A] successful plaintiff in a trademark infringement case is entitled to recover enhanced statutory damages even where its actual damages are nominal or non-existent.")); Playboy Enter., Inc. v. Universal Tel-A-Talk, Inc., No. CIV.A. 96-6961, 1998 WL 767440, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 1998) (awarding statutory damages where plaintiff failed to prove actual damages or profits). Indeed, Congress enacted a statutory damages remedy in trademark counterfeiting cases because evidence of a defendant's profits in such cases is almost impossible to ascertain. See, e.g., S. REP. NO. 104-177, pt. V(7) (1995) (discussing purposes of Lanham Act statutory damages); see also PetMed Express, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d at 1220 (statutory damages are "especially appropriate in default judgment cases due to infringer nondisclosure"). This case is no exception.
This Court may award statutory damages "without holding an evidentiary hearing based upon affidavits and other documentary evidence if the facts are not disputed." Perry Ellis Int'l, Inc. v. URI Corp., No. 06-22020-CIV, 2007 WL 3047143, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2007). Although the Court is permitted to conduct a hearing on a default judgment in regards to damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2)(B), an evidentiary hearing is not necessary where there is sufficient evidence on the record to support the request for damages. See SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225, 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005) ("Rule 55(b)(2) speaks of evidentiary hearings in a permissive tone . . . We have held that no such hearing is required where all essential evidence is already of record." (citations omitted)); see also PetMed Express, 336 F. Supp. 2d at 1223 (entering default judgment, permanent injunction and statutory damages in a Lanham Act case without a hearing).
Here, the allegations in the Amended Complaint, which are taken as true, clearly establish Defendants intentionally copied Plaintiffs' Marks for the purpose of deriving the benefit of Plaintiffs' famous respective reputations. As such, the Lanham Act permits the Court to award up to $2,000,000.00 per infringing mark on each type of good as statutory damages to ensure that Defendants do not continue their intentional and willful counterfeiting activities.
The evidence in this case demonstrates that each Defendant promoted, distributed, advertised, offered for sale, and/or sold at least one (1) type of good under at least two (2) types of marks which were in fact counterfeits of at least one of Plaintiffs' Marks. See ECF No. [15]. Based on the above considerations, Plaintiffs suggest the Court award statutory damages of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) per mark, per type of good. As each Defendant used at least two counterfeit marks on one type of good, Plaintiffs suggest the Court award statutory damages of $1,000,000.00 against each Defendant. The award should be sufficient to deter Defendants and others from continuing to counterfeit or otherwise infringe Plaintiffs' trademarks, compensate Plaintiffs, and punish Defendants, all stated goals of 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). The Court finds that this award of statutory damages falls within the permissible statutory range under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) and is just.
E. Damages for False Designation of Origin
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint also sets forth a cause of action for false designation of origin pursuant to § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (Count II). See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). As to Count II, the allowed scope of monetary damages is also encompassed in 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). Accordingly, judgment on Count II is limited to the amount awarded pursuant to Count I and entry of the requested equitable relief.
F. Damages for Common Law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint further sets forth a cause of action under Florida's common law of unfair competition (Count III) and trademark infringement (Count IV). Judgment on Count III and Count IV are also limited to the amount awarded pursuant to Count I and entry of the requested equitable relief.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion, ECF No. [32], is GRANTED against those Defendants listed in the attached Schedule "A." Final Default Judgment will be entered by separate order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, May 6, 2021.
/s/ _________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record
SCHEDULE A:
DEFENDANTS BY NUMBER, SELLER ID, AND
RESPECTIVE FINANCIAL ACCOUNT
Def. No. Defendant / Seller ID Financial Account Information / Store Number Infringing Product Number 1 criquin_12 labrindle@outlook.com 2 kathphe_76 ecolbrea@yahoo.com 3 daabra_2441 davidabramson684@yahoo.com 4 dress37 dresstangs@gmail.com 5 riclan83 richardlandon914@yahoo.com 6 voya817 voyaberg@gmail.com 7 wows_5863 wowsherd@gmail.com 8 dakok97 Maxips@yahoo.com 9 deadega0 Pattygrinder@hotmail.com 10 keengel2345 Marcsflea@gmail.com 11 prin-9599 prinhera@yahoo.com 12 shun_6873 Shunsurt@hotmail.com 13 wellg_79 Geheidbdidhe10@gmail.com 14 aunwic0 gambitesco@yahoo.com 15 smart-5331 smarttleysd@gmail.com 16 mabla1047 mariablanco232@aol.com 17 lab-271 Wschensn7neng@hotmail.com 18 Shop5257090 Store 5257090 4000174902263 19 97k-cube pp.xjh8@hotmail.com 20 trabroth_23 kulonembong1@gmail.com 21 518chakesi dong1994yi@outlook.com 22 huayunjiaoyu juleidy4107@163.com 23 irenestor65 Mrdaih68hao@hotmail.com 24 danigo-4392 chengweiqi2020@163.com 25 zhumeiling 5a7c04af417cee603ac99bd2 5e8588a7093e6b10c129bc08 26 aleeya_19 Thfan7aj8wu9@hotmail.com 27 jozach45 Mrguzyou98z@hotmail.com 28 mariahgofil meizhen1231xie@hotmail.com 29 matthew-pope vhsqpnyjihs@gmail.com 30 mylesdeb_67 zhe933zhongmr@hotmail.com 31 stetlerstef_13 Wsheda88mi@hotmail.com 32 macha_2268 kuyuuuxixoaaljkjm@outlook.com 33 nancyb9863 Yanjpppjsdccx@outlook.com 34 nichro-4155 HuujKU858Jnkl@outlook.com 35 niruydfwesr32 niruydfwesrbnfryu6r4598@gmail.com 36 warrencl71 luuuRINGH@outlook.com 37 jose.agu_44 uwuaoo01j8jdqa@gmail.com 38 meganb-62 meganbrewis05@gmail.com 39 otsra_50 otsranthfl@gmail.com 18 Def. No. Defendant / Seller ID Financial Account Information / Store Number Infringing Product Number 40 dolmccle61 Earfusi@hotmail.com 41 insic-76 kokutagi413@gmail.com 42 xuninini 5b977a2f063ce14991a745ce 5ed719e1916933c86052f0e4 43 qiantec qiantecc@gmail.com 44 bratb4190 brookeshelton1971@gmail.com 45 Shop910563236 Store 910563236 1005001464961451 46 seedekez algraouf7@gmail.com 47 rearrange518 peacesl@163.com 48 vicselv0 tjdslmx183@163.com 49 pamur-8881 tjdshb183@163.com 49 brast_7625 tjdshb183@163.com 50 andkis65 tjdsql193@163.com 51 chrivang84 a17104420713@163.com 52 darobe440054 daleroberson998@yahoo.com 53 doupow-75 tjdslh193@163.com 54 incat-88 incatechno@yahoo.com 55 mcg_2100 tjdsyjh173@163.com 56 mdonal_1246 mdonald19371@gmail.com 57 micko-6335 kohnm164@gmail.com 58 phidan_3952 dangelophilip990@yahoo.com 59 ricfu_5842 richardfuori@yahoo.com 60 styl-7725 jww8968@163.com 61 wiibol_4 Deluxedn@yahoo.com 62 willong-9719 tjdslsw321@163.com 63 daga_8967 LQ16520741546@163.com 64 loxevery321 LH16520744191@163.com 64 hawhi_50 LH16520744191@163.com