RV Skincare Brands LLC v. Digby Investments Limited
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-08411
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In RV Skincare Brands LLC v. Digby Investments Limited, Judge Caproni entered default judgment, awarding $150,000 and a permanent trademark injunction.
RV Skincare Brands LLC received a $150,000 default judgment, post-judgment interest, and a permanent injunction. Digby Investments Limited is subject to the monetary judgment and injunction. The remaining defendants were dismissed, and the case was closed.
What happened
RV Skincare Brands LLC sued Digby Investments Limited and other defendants over trademark violations. Digby failed to appear after two court orders requiring it to explain why default judgment should not be entered. RV Skincare agreed to dismiss the remaining defendants.
RV Skincare chose statutory damages under the federal trademark law and requested $300,000 for six violations. The court found that the available information did not establish Digby’s profits, RV Skincare’s lost revenue, or the precise value of the marks, so it relied mainly on Digby’s willful infringement, evasive conduct, and the need for deterrence.
Judge Valerie Caproni entered judgment for RV Skincare against Digby for $150,000, plus post-judgment interest, and issued a permanent injunction barring Digby and related persons and entities from specified uses of the REVIVE and Ré Vive marks and from confusing or unfair competition. The court declined prejudgment interest, dismissed the remaining defendants, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- RV Skincare Brands LLC v. Digby Investments Limited · No. 1:18-cv-08411
- Valerie Caproni
- July 31, 2020
Background
RV Skincare Brands LLC brought this trademark case against Digby Investments Limited and other defendants. Digby failed to appear in response to orders issued on May 10, 2019, and September 27, 2019, requiring it to show why default judgment should not be entered. The issue of damages had previously been postponed. RV Skincare agreed to dismiss all remaining defendants.
Damages request
RV Skincare elected statutory damages under section 1117(c) of the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute. It sought $50,000 per violation for three infringing marks used on two products each, for a total of $300,000. The court explained that statutory damages are discretionary and may consider factors such as the defendant’s profits, the plaintiff’s lost revenue, the value of the marks, deterrence, whether the conduct was innocent or willful, and the defendant’s cooperation in providing records.
RV Skincare did not provide enough information for the court to quantify Digby’s financial benefit, RV Skincare’s lost revenue, or the precise value of the infringed marks. The court nevertheless stated that the marks appeared valuable because they were distributed through multiple high-end retailers. It based the damages determination largely on Digby’s willful infringement, repeated failure to appear, evasive conduct after detection, and the need for deterrence.
Ruling and relief
The court entered default judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 55(b). It awarded RV Skincare $150,000 in statutory damages, calculated as six violations at $25,000 each, because of Digby’s willful infringement and continued evasive conduct. The judgment also includes post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The court declined to award prejudgment interest because that interest is compensatory and RV Skincare provided no information about its losses while electing statutory damages.
The court issued a permanent injunction against Digby and the specified officers, agents, affiliates, employees, attorneys, intermediaries, distributors, warehousing and fulfillment entities, and persons or entities in privity with or acting with them. The injunction bars specified uses of REVIVE and marks confusingly similar to the Ré Vive trademarks, representing that Digby is authorized to use such marks, conduct likely to cause confusion or suggest an affiliation with RV Skincare, unfair trade practices, and other unfair competition. The Clerk was directed to dismiss the remaining defendants, terminate the motions and deadlines, and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.