WEST PALM BEACH – A federal magistrate judge denied CIJ Enterprises' motions for attorneys' fees and costs in a lawsuit against it over allegations of trademark infringement.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart found that, after conducting a bench trial on Nov. 4, that plaintiffs Sream Inc. and Roor International BV failed to prove their claims, but while he had found in favor of CIJ, he was denying its motion, according to an order filed March 3 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
In its motion for attorneys' fees, CIJ claimed that Sream and Roor's case was in bad faith and wasted the court's time and resources.
"While I agree that judicial resources should not be wasted, the evidence presented at trial established that plaintiffs had a trademark for their Roor water pipes and that defendant sold a counterfeit product with the same mark," Reinhart wrote. "These facts undermine defendant’s suggestion that plaintiffs’ lawsuits are frivolous; even though plaintiffs did not prevail, there appears to have been a reasonable basis for plaintiffs to bring an infringement action in this instance."
Reinhart wrote that he also rejected CIJ's claim that the case was exceptional in with CIJ alleging the water pipes discussed in the infringement suit were illegal, but Reinhart noted there was no evidence to support this claim.
"Based on the foregoing, I find that this was not an exceptional case under the Lanham Act and I decline to award attorney’s fees," Reinhart wrote.
Reinhart believed the difference in the quality of the two products was obvious, and that it was unlikely there was actual confusion by customers in this instance.
The case was initially filed in 2018 over allegations that Sream and Roor registered a trademark and that CIJ infringed on that trademark when it sold a water pipe at a convenience store that had Roor's mark.
The plaintiffs investigated the counterfeit water pipe sold by the defendant and, upon inspection, noted it bore the Roor mark, which infringed on the plaintiffs' trademark. The plaintiffs alleged in the complaint they suffered damages due to the defendant's counterfeit product.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida case number 9:18-cv-80860