Court grants default judgment against Florida market accused of selling fake Roor water pipes

By Charmaine Little | Nov 8, 2018

MIAMI – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently granted a default judgement against a Florida market that failed to respond to a lawsuit accusing it of selling counterfeit Roor branded water pipes.

In a court order filed Oct. 16, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom granted a motion by plaintiffs Sream Inc. and Roor International for default judgment in their trademark infringement suit against Federal Market Place Inc.

Sream and Roor sued Federal Market Place in July claiming it performed willful trademark infringement and counterfeiting of the Roor trademark and willful trademark infringement for false designation. After the defendant failed to respond, the plaintiffs filed for default judgment and requested damages via the Lanham Act for $50,000 and injunctive relief, which the court granted.

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), the court is authorized to enter a final judgment of default against a party who has failed to plead in response to a complaint,” the court order said. While a defendant’s decision to not appear in court doesn’t always lead to a default judgment, the court determined it was fitting in this case. It pointed out the plaintiffs provided enough sufficient information to make their claims against the defendant and establish Federal Market Place’s responsibility and liability.

Sream and Roor claimed Martin Birzle worked on designing specific brand items for Roor, court filings said. Both companies have a licensing agreement under which Sream manufactures water pipes, and advertises, markets and distributes smoker’s articles using the Roor trademark. Federal Market Place allegedly infringed on the trademark when it sold products that included the trademark that the plaintiffs said could create confusion for consumers. “As a result, the products sold by defendant with the alleged trademark diminish the good will of the Roor mark, and defendant is making substantial profits and gains to which it is not entitled,” according to the lawsuit. 

The court ruled the defendant admitted the allegations by default when it decided not to show up in court. 

Want to get notified whenever we write about U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ?

Sign-up Next time we write about U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

More News

The Record Network