GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND d/b/a GOLDEN GOOSE SPA v. AADCT OFFICIAL STORE

Background

Golden Goose Deluxe Brand, described in the report as a high-end Italian fashion and accessories brand, brought two related lawsuits against entities that allegedly sold counterfeit Golden Goose products through Alibaba and AliExpress. The complaints asserted trademark counterfeiting, infringement of registered and unregistered trademarks, false designation of origin, passing off, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.

Golden Goose served the defendants using court-authorized methods. The defendants did not answer. The court first issued a temporary restraining order and later converted it into a preliminary injunction. Golden Goose initially moved for summary judgment, but agreed to withdraw that motion and seek default judgment instead. The court treated the summary-judgment motion as a motion for default judgment, and the cases were referred to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for an inquest.

Liability and damages

Because the defendants defaulted, the report treated the properly pleaded factual allegations, other than allegations about damages, as true. Those allegations stated that the defendants sold products that were nearly indistinguishable from Golden Goose products, used Golden Goose’s marks without authorization, and acted knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard or willful blindness. The report separately examined the evidence supporting damages because default did not automatically establish the amount of damages.

Golden Goose elected statutory damages under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark law. The report explained that the statute permits between $1,000 and $200,000 per counterfeit mark and permits up to $2,000,000 when the violation is willful. It considered factors including defendants’ likely profits and Golden Goose’s lost revenue, the value of the marks, deterrence, willfulness, and defendants’ failure to provide business records. The report concluded that $75,000 per defaulting defendant was appropriate.

Recommended relief

For case 19-cv-2521, the report recommended granting Golden Goose’s motion for default judgment and entering judgment of $75,000 against each listed defaulting defendant, for a total of $10,575,000, plus post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). For case 19-cv-2524, it recommended granting the motion and entering judgment of $75,000 against each listed defaulting defendant, for a total of $5,850,000, plus post-judgment interest.

The report also recommended a permanent injunction on the same terms as the existing preliminary injunction, a continued freeze on defendants’ assets, and transfer of those assets to Golden Goose to satisfy the awards. Judge Gorenstein concluded that Golden Goose had shown the factors required for permanent injunctive relief, including likely confusion, irreparable harm, inadequate monetary relief, and the public interest in avoiding deception about the source and quality of goods.

Recommendation procedure

The document was a report and recommendation rather than a final district-court judgment. It directed Golden Goose to serve the report on the defendants and file proof of service within seven days. The parties were given 14 days after service to file objections, and responses to objections were due 14 days after service of the objections. The report stated that a party who failed to object timely could not raise those objections on appeal.