Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Apr. 20, 2023

Mattel v. Guangzhou Huaweimian Clothing Co.

Full caption

Mattel, Inc. v. Guangzhou Huaweimian Clothing Co., Ltd. d/b/a www.barbiedollhouse.shop

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-00963
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Intellectual PropertyCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mattel v. Guangzhou Huaweimian, Judge Abrams entered judgment awarding $500,000 in heightened statutory damages for counterfeit marks and types of goods sold.

Who this affects

Mattel, Inc. received a $500,000 heightened statutory-damages award; the named defendants are subject to the judgment. The provided text does not specify how the award is allocated among defendants.

What happened

Mattel, Inc. sued Guangzhou Huaweimian Clothing Co., Ltd. and other defendants connected with several Barbie-related websites. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims or the defendants’ responses.

The court stated that, because of the nature of the infringing matter at issue, $125,000 per counterfeit mark per type of good sold was appropriate. It entered judgment awarding $500,000 in heightened statutory damages and closed the case.

In Mattel, Inc. v. Guangzhou Huaweimian Clothing Co., Ltd., Judge Ronnie Abrams entered the judgment on April 20, 2023. The judgment relies on reasons stated in a separate April 19, 2023 memo-endorsed order, which is not included in the provided text.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Mattel v. Guangzhou Huaweimian Clothing Co. · No. 1:22-cv-00963
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Apr. 20, 2023

Background

Mattel, Inc. brought this action against Guangzhou Huaweimian Clothing Co., Ltd. d/b/a www.barbiedollhouse.shop and other named defendants associated with several Barbie-related websites. The provided judgment does not explain the claims, the parties’ litigation positions, or the court’s earlier factual findings.

Court’s reasoning

The judgment states that the court agreed with the reasons in its memo-endorsed order dated April 19, 2023. It further states that, given the nature of the infringing matter at issue, an award of $125,000 per counterfeit mark per type of good sold was appropriate. The judgment cites another Southern District of New York case as support. The April 19 order and the cited case are not included in the provided text, so the full reasoning cannot be summarized here.

Disposition

The court entered judgment and awarded $500,000 in heightened statutory damages. It then ordered that the case be closed. The provided text does not expressly describe the judgment as a default judgment and does not state whether any other relief was awarded.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.