Quantcast

Court grants German glass manufacturer's default judgment against Florida convenience store

FLORIDA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Court grants German glass manufacturer's default judgment against Florida convenience store

Lawsuits
Trademark 02

FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A federal court has granted a German glass manufacturer's and its U.S. licensee's motion for default judgment and awarded $50,000 in damages in the case against a Florida convenience store accused of trademark counterfeiting and infringement relating to the selling of glass pipes.

According to the April 11 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Fort Pierce Division filing, Sream Inc., and RooR International BV petitioned the court for a default judgment due to Asat Inc.'s, doing business as A-1 Discount Beverage, failure to respond to the complaint.

The case, is one of many filed by the plaintiffs, https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-bong-lawsuits-south-florida-20161217-story.html against small retailers selling glass pipes, involves RooR, an international manufacturer of glass water pipes and Sream, its "exclusive" licensee in the U.S.  The plaintiffs allege an investigator purchased a glass water pipe at A-1 Discount Beverage, which contained the RooR mark on it but was actually counterfeit.  In a lawsuit filed in July 2018, the plaintiffs alleged violation of the Lanham Act and false designation of origin and unfair competition. 


The court ruled that the defendant's failure to answer or respond to the plaintiff's complaint has resulted in defaulted to the allegations. U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez stated the plaintiff's "have adequately pled its marks have the priority" and that the defendant's mark could confuse customers.  

In regard to the claim of false designation of origin and unfair competition, Martinez stated the plaintiffs "have established that they had enforceable rights" to the RooR trademark. The court awarded $50,000 in statutory damages and $693.31 in costs of action to the plaintiff as well as permanently restraining and enjoining the defendants from using the RooR trademarks "in any manner." 

Martinez also concluded the defendants must deliver all products "bearing the RooR trademark to the plaintiffs for destruction.

More News