4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. N.Y. & Co.
civil trademark infringement action under the Lanham Act (registered mark); jury verdict of infringement not challenged on appeal; district judge's willfulness finding and award of defendants' stipulated gross profits affirmed (actual confusion not required for profits); removal of trebling affirmed on cross-appeal; attorney's fees and prejudgment interest vacated and remanded for the Octane Fitness standard (result: mixed)
Facts
- 14 Remedy-specific proof satisfied proved
Hedvat conceded that Reflex's sales of Velocity products actually increased between 2014 and 2016, including during the period after which he discovered NY & C's allegedly infringing use.
- 14 Remedy-specific proof satisfied proved
After Hedvat concluded his testimony, the parties stipulated on the record that Defendants' gross profits from the sale of products bearing the NY & C Velocity trademark were $1,864,337.29.
- 14 Remedy-specific proof satisfied proved
At trial, Plaintiffs presented no direct evidence of Defendants' state of mind in using the "NY & C Velocity" brand.
- 14 Remedy-specific proof satisfied proved
Defendants provided no evidence to explain or justify their failure to cease selling the infringing sportswear once they received actual notice of Plaintiffs' allegations.
- 14 Remedy-specific proof satisfied proved
Considering the totality of the factors identified by the District Court as the basis for its decision, we will not disturb its determination that Defendants willfully infringed Plaintiffs' trademark.
- 14 Remedy-specific proof satisfied proved
To dispel any doubts as to this question, we write to clarify that, in our Circuit, a plaintiff need not establish actual consumer confusion to recover lost profits under the Lanham Act.
- 14 Remedy-specific proof satisfied proved
Nevertheless, applying the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review that governs such rulings, we conclude that the District Court acted within the permissible bounds of its discretion by not doing so here.
- 14 Remedy-specific proof satisfied proved
It is uncontested, however, that NY & C continued to sell the allegedly infringing products after the lawsuit was filed and they had been duly served.