​Mrachek Law Wins Important Case Concerning Trademark Infringement And Business Sale Agreement Dispute In Federal Court

​Mrachek Law attorneys Scott Konopka and Paige Gillman, from the Firm’s Stuart office, obtained a summary judgment on behalf of the Firm’s clients in a federal trademark infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Firm represented the plaintiff in a federal action sounding in claims for infringement brought under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1125 and 15 U.S.C. sec. 1114, common law infringement under Florida law, breach of a business sale agreement, and cybersquatting. Judge Middlebrooks, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, granted the Firm’s motion for summary judgment and awarded statutory damages in excess of $850,000, plus contract damages and attorney fees and costs, which total in excess of one million dollars.

The Court awarded statutory damages because ​Mrachek Law was able to establish that the infringement was willful and intentional, and because the defendants had engaged in numerous discovery violations that prevented the Firm’s clients from calculating their actual damages. The Court also opted to exercise its equitable powers to permanently enjoin the defendants from using the trademark at issue.

The Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and rejected the defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs had abandoned the trademark or engaged in naked licensing, and struck the Defendants’ affidavit in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, because the defendant’s affidavit was substantially different than his testimony during his deposition.

The Court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the parties’ Business Sale Agreement should be voided because of interference with his business. The Court found that there was no evidence that the defendant was under duress when he signed the agreement, and rejected the claim that the purpose of the agreement was frustrated. The Court awarded attorneys’ fees to the Firm’s clients, which required proof that the the defendants’ actions were malicious, fraudulent, deliberate and willful.

A copy of the Court’s Order can be found here.