Garrett Electronics, Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedDecember 31, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-24346
StatusUnknown

This text of Garrett Electronics, Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Garrett Electronics, Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A) 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.

Bluebook
Garrett Electronics, Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, (S.D. Fla. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 24-24346-CIV-MARTINEZ/SANCHEZ GARRETT ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

Defendants. _______________________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This matter is before the Court upon the motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 13, filed by the Plaintiff, Garrett Electronics, Inc. (“GARRETT ELECTRONICS”).1 Plaintiff has moved for entry of a preliminary injunction against the Defendants2 based on claims of alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1117, and design patent infringement, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendants allegedly used at least the domain

1 The Plaintiff’s motion was originally filed as an Ex Parte Application for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Transfer of the Defendant Internet Stores, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery, but the Honorable Jose E. Martinez granted the Plaintiff’s request for entry of a temporary restraining order and an order restraining assets, ECF No. 15, and he then referred all matters relating to the Plaintiff’s motion for application for entry of preliminary injunction to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 16. 2 The Defendants are the Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, the latest version of which is attached to Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Amended [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 38-1. The Defendants are also listed in the Notice of Entry of Parties. See ECF No. 37. A copy of the current Schedule A listing the Defendants that are the subject of this Report and Recommendation is attached hereto. names identified in Schedule A (the “Defendant Domain Names”) and the online marketplace accounts identified in such Schedule A (the “Online Marketplace Accounts”). Plaintiff also seeks an order restraining the financial accounts used by the Defendants pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, 35 U.S.C. § 283, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, and The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

The Court held a hearing on December 30, 2024, at which only counsel for the Plaintiff was present and available to provide evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s motion. The Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s motion, have not made any filings in this case, and have not appeared in this matter, either individually or through counsel. Having reviewed the Plaintiff’s motion, its accompanying attachments, the record, and the relevant legal authority, and for the reasons discussed below, the undersigned RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDS that the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is the owner of federally registered trademarks, which are covered by U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3,802,639, 3,809,839, 1,164,465, 4,223,990, 1,162,578, 3,713,177,

3,787,349, 2,506,112, 1,654,807, 3,818,179, 3,790,254, 4,001,143, 3,713,049, 1,636,048, 4,279,627, 3,236,345, and 3,787,350 (the “GARRETT ELECTRONICS Trademarks”) and design patents, U.S. Patent Nos. D513,706 S and D583,261 S (the “GARRETT ELECTRONICS Patents”). ECF No. 13-1 (Declaration of Robert Podhrasky) at ¶¶ 5-6; ECF Nos. 13-2, 13-3. Plaintiff is a leading supplier and manufacturer of metal detection technology products, such as pointers, scanners, and metal detectors which encompass proprietary technology, and has earned an international reputation for quality, reliability, and value with respect to its products (the “GARRETT ELECTRONICS Products”). ECF No. 13-1 at ¶ 7. Plaintiff is the official source of GARRETT ELECTRONICS Products in the United States. Id. The GARRETT ELECTRONICS Products have been the subject of substantial marketing and promotion by Plaintiff in the industry and to consumers. See id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff’s promotional efforts include, for example, advertising through print media, social media sites, radio, television, and trade shows. Id. at ¶ 8. The GARRETT ELECTRONICS Trademarks have been continuously used and never abandoned. The

success of the GARRETT ELECTRONICS brand has resulted in its significant infringement and counterfeiting. Id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiff safeguards its brand and investment in the GARRETT ELECTRONICS Products by way of an anti-counterfeiting program and related investigations. Id. The Defendants, through the various Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the seller identities identified on Schedule A (the “Seller IDs”), have advertised, promoted, offered for sale, sold, or imported counterfeit products bearing the GARRETT ELECTRONICS Trademarks and/or embodying the GARRETT ELECTRONICS Patents from foreign countries to consumers in this District. ECF No. 13-1 at ¶¶ 9-18, 23; ECF Nos. 13-4 to 13-25. Plaintiff has not licensed or authorized Defendants to use the GARRETT ELECTRONICS

Trademarks or GARRETT ELECTRONICS Patents, and none of the Defendants is an authorized retailer of genuine GARRETT ELECTRONICS Products. ECF No. 13-1 at ¶ 22. Plaintiff investigated the promotion and sale of counterfeit and infringing versions of the Plaintiff’s branded protected products by the Defendants. See ECF No. 13-1 at ¶¶ 9-16; ECF Nos. 13-4 to 13-25. Plaintiff accessed each of the e-commerce stores operating under the Defendants’ Seller IDs, initiated the ordering process for the purchase of a product from each of the Seller IDs bearing counterfeits of the GARRETT ELECTRONICS Trademarks and/or embodying the GARRETT ELECTRONICS Patents at issue in this action, and completed a checkout page requesting each product to be shipped to an address in the Southern District of Florida. See ECF No. 13-1 at ¶¶ 12-16; ECF Nos. 13-4 to 13-25. Plaintiff conducted a review and visually inspected the GARRETT ELECTRONICS branded items for which orders were initiated by Plaintiff via the Seller IDs and determined the products were counterfeit, non-genuine, unauthorized versions of Plaintiff’s products. See ECF No. 13-1 at ¶¶ 10-16; ECF Nos. 13-4 to 13-25.

II. LEGAL STANDARD The Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. To obtain a preliminary injunction, the Plaintiff must establish “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that the entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex. rel Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l. Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 1995) (applying the test to a preliminary injunction in a Lanham Act

case). III.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo v. Michael Schiavo
403 F.3d 1223 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
Fuller Products Co. v. The Fuller Brush Company
299 F.2d 772 (Seventh Circuit, 1962)
Kenneth Henley v. Willie E. Johnson, Warden
885 F.2d 790 (Eleventh Circuit, 1989)
Leon F. Harrigan v. Ernesto Rodriguez
977 F.3d 1185 (Eleventh Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Garrett Electronics, Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-electronics-inc-v-the-individuals-corporations-limited-flsd-2024.