FIMAB-FINANZIARIA MAGLIFICIO, ETC. v. Kitchen
This text of 548 F. Supp. 248 (FIMAB-FINANZIARIA MAGLIFICIO, ETC. v. Kitchen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FIMAB-FINANZIARIA MAGLIFICIO BIELLESE FRATELLI FILA S.p.A. and Fila Sports, Inc., Plaintiffs,
v.
Bruce KITCHEN, Roy Gusow, Sherley Gusow and Woodmont Country Club, Inc., Defendants.
United States District Court, S. D. Florida.
John Cyril Malloy, P.A., William E. Levin, Miami, Fla., Flehr, Hohbach, Test, Albritton *249 & Herbert, Elmer S. Albritton, Reginald J. Suyat, Alvin H. Pelavin, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Joel S. Fass, Colodny & Fass, North Miami, Fla., for Roy Gusow and Sherley Gusow.
Joseph W. Beasley, Kelly, Black, Black & Earle, P.A., Miami, Fla., Steven N. Fayne, Tiballi & Fayne, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for Woodmont Country Club, Inc.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS, ORDER OF SEIZURE AND FURTHER RELIEF
PAINE, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the verified Complaint For Trademark And Trade Name Infringement And Unfair Competition, Plaintiffs' Application For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs' Application For Order Of Immediate Deposition Of Defendants, Order Of Seizure And Further Relief, the memorandums of law in support of those applications, and evidentiary materials submitted by plaintiffs, including one of the putative FILA warm-up suits sold or offered for sale by defendants, and the declarations filed by plaintiffs of Samuele Azaria, Elmer S. Albritton, William E. Levin, Rose LaFlamme and Carlos R. Romero.
The Court has concurrently herewith granted plaintiffs Order To Show Cause For Preliminary Injunction With A Temporary Restraining Order, on an ex parte basis. The Court also now grants plaintiff's Order For Immediate Deposition Of Defendants, Order Of Seizure And Further Relief, for the reasons discussed below.
The Court finds that plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing that defendants are selling and offering for sale and importing into the United States counterfeit FILA warm-up suits which are virtually identical imitations of plaintiffs' trade name and registered trademarks, including its "F" logo, which are being passed off as genuine FILA products. The Court has examined and compared the sample of defendants' counterfeit FILA warm-up suit with the genuine FILA warm-up suit submitted to the Court by plaintiffs.
The Court also finds that the plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing under Rule 65(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that plaintiffs and their attorneys have taken steps to avoid giving any notice to the defendants of this proceeding, and that the giving of notice to the defendants would be likely to result in the disappearance of the counterfeit FILA goods and related records, or the "dumping" or transfer of the counterfeit goods to unknown third parties, jeopardizing plaintiffs' ability to prevent irreparable injury, to stop the distribution of counterfeit FILA products, and to determine the source and extent of the defendants' dealings in the counterfeit FILA products. Plaintiffs have brought to the Court's attention the bourgeaning case law around the country which have recognized and approved as both appropriate and necessary judicial relief the granting of temporary restraining orders without notice, expedited discovery, and immediate seizure by the United States Marshal of counterfeit goods.
Most of these cases are unreported. In this judicial district, such relief has been granted many times in trademark counterfeiting cases. See, e.g., Fimab-Finanziaria Maglificio Biellese Fratelli Fila S.p.A. v. Sebelen, Civil Action No. 81-1058-CIV-JE (S.D.Fla.1981) (the same plaintiffs here); Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. P. K. Sorren Export Company, Inc. of Florida, 546 F.Supp. 987 (S.D.Fla.1982). There are several reported decisions in this judicial district alone. NEA Enterprises, Inc. v. Zack's, 209 USPQ 566 (S.D.Fla.1980); CPC International Inc. v. Albury Sales Co., Inc., 504 F.Supp. 549 (S.D.Fla.1980), appeal dismissed (5th Cir. 1981). The weight of authority around the country appears to favor the granting of ex parte seizure orders in trademark counterfeiting cases, where fake versions of well-known brands are deliberately passed off to the public as the genuine article. See, e.g., Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Mustell Fashions, Inc., San S. Lee and Lee Sportswear Co., 80 Civ. 5291 (S.D.N.Y. *250 1980); Calvin Klein Company and Centerfold Industries, Inc. v. Snooty Tooty's, 80 Civ. 2448 (D.C.Kan.1980); Rock Tours, Ltd. v. Various John Does, 80-742-MA (D.Mass. 1980). In Cartier, Incorporated v. Bags `N' Things, Inc., Civil Action C82-34A (N.D.Ga. 1982), Judge Ward ordered seizure of counterfeits in the possession of any "John Does" identified later by plaintiffs, and later, when the John Does were identified as residents of a different judicial district, ordered seizure in that district. Many of these decisions derive from the recognition in the seminal case of In Re Vuitton et Fils S.A., 606 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1979) that "dumping" of counterfeit goods or transfer of counterfeit goods to unknown third parties, is a common practice in the counterfeiting industry. Expedited discovery should be granted when some unusual circumstances or conditions exist that would likely prejudice the party if he were required to wait the normal time. Gibson v. Bagas Restaurants, 87 F.R.D. 60, 62 (W.D.Mo.1980). Such prejudice is frequently the case where a well-known trademark, such as plaintiffs here, has been counterfeited and the sources or purchasers of the counterfeit products are unknown to plaintiff.
South Florida, in particular, is widely becoming known as a haven for counterfeiters, with the spectrum of products which have been prey to this contagion being limited only by the outer bounds of the human imagination. Designer clothing, wellknown watches, credit card companies, and even such items as MAZOLA corn oil have been slavishly copied. The public is deceived daily.
Although temporary restraining orders without notice should be entered only in the most unusual circumstances in which irreparable harm would otherwise occur, the plaintiff makes a showing of such circumstances in this case. Therefore, with some reluctance, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defendants shall appear for their depositions at the times indicated hereinafter and shall, to the extent not already seized by the United States Marshal, or persons acting under his supervision, produce all goods in their possession, custody or control which bear or display plaintiffs' name "FILA" and/or the "F" logo trademark, together with all documents, including Customs documents, referring or relating to defendants' purchases or obtaining of any such goods (whether or not presently in the custody of defendants) and relating to the sale or other disposition of such goods, at the offices of John Cyril Malloy, P.A., Suite 834, Alfred I. DuPont Building, 169 East Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33131. The foregoing parties are to appear for their depositions according to the following schedule:
Bruce Kitchen April 1 , 1982_____ Roy Gusow April 1 , 1982_____ Sherley Gusow April 1 , 1982_____ Woodmont Country Club April 1 , 1982_____
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
548 F. Supp. 248, 4 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fimab-finanziaria-maglificio-etc-v-kitchen-flsd-1982.