Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedAugust 7, 2024
Docket0:24-cv-61195
StatusUnknown

This text of Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities, 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
Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, (S.D. Fla. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION CASE NO. 24-CV-61195-MARTINEZ/VALLE TIFFANY (NJ) LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESS ENTITIES, AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A,”

Defendants. /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISTRICT JUDGE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Tiffany (NJ) LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Order Restraining Transfer of Assets (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 9 at 8-13). United States District Judge Jose E. Martinez has referred the Motion to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 15 at 1). Accordingly, having held an evidentiary hearing on the matter, and having considered the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the request for a preliminary injunction be GRANTED for the reasons stated below. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is the owner of the following trademarks, which are valid and registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “Tiffany Marks”): Trademark No. 0,023,572, registered on September 5, 1893; Trademark No. 0,023,573 registered on September 5, 1893; Trademark No. 0,133,063, registered on July 6, 1920; Trademark No. 1,228,189, registered on February 22, 1983; Trademark No. 1,228,409, registered on February 22, 1983; Trademark No. 1,669,365, registered on December 24, 1991; Trademark No. 2,359,351, registered on June 20, 2000; Trademark No. 2,416,795, registered on January 2, 2001; Trademark No. 3,665,959, registered on August 11, 2009; Trademark No. 5,176,498, registered on April 4, 2017; Trademark No. 7,185,896, registered on October 10, 2023. See (ECF No. 9-1 ¶ 4)

(Declaration of Pilar Toro) (“Toro Decl.”). The Tiffany Marks are used in connection with the manufacture and distribution of high-quality goods. Id. Defendants are 49 individuals, business entities, and unincorporated associations identified on Schedule A of this Order. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, through Internet based e-commerce stores have advertised, promoted, offered for sale, or sold goods bearing and/or using what Plaintiff has determined to be counterfeits, infringements, reproductions, or colorable imitations of one or more of the Tiffany Marks. See Toro Decl. ¶¶ 9, 11-13; see also (ECF No. 9-2 ¶¶ 2-3) (Declaration of Stephen M. Gaffigan) (“Gaffigan Decl.”); (ECF No. 9-3 ¶ 4) (Declaration of Kathleen Burns) (“Burns Decl.”).

On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendants alleging: (i) trademark counterfeiting and infringement, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (ii) false designation of origin, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (iii) common law unfair competition; and (iv) common law trademark infringement. See generally (ECF No. 1) (“Compl.”); see also (ECF No. 19) (“Amended Compl.”) (alleging same causes of action against Defendants). One day later, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. On July 16, 2024, the District Judge entered an order granting Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order, temporarily prohibiting Defendants from the wrongful use of the Tiffany Marks, and restraining Defendants from transferring assets. (ECF No. 14) (the “TRO”). Pursuant to the TRO, Plaintiff properly served Defendants with a copy of all filings in this matter, including the Complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion, the witness declarations, the TRO, and the undersigned’s Order setting the preliminary injunction hearing.1 See (ECF Nos. 23, 24). Nonetheless, only counsel for Plaintiff appeared and presented evidence at the August 7, 2024 hearing. To date, Defendants have not responded to the Motion or appeared in this case,

individually or through counsel. II. FINDINGS OF FACT At the preliminary injunction hearing, Plaintiff relied on the Toro declaration to establish its ownership of the Tiffany Marks. See Toro Decl. ¶ 4. According to the evidence, the Tiffany Marks have never been assigned or licensed to Defendants, and Defendants do not have, nor have they ever had, the right or authority to use the Tiffany Marks for any purpose. Toro Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12-13. Moreover, prior to filing the Complaint, Plaintiff’s counsel retained Invisible Inc, a licensed private investigative firm, to investigate Defendants’ suspected sale of counterfeit

versions of Plaintiff’s branded products and document the payment account data for funds paid to Defendants for the sale of counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s branded products. See Toro Decl. ¶ 10; Burns Decl. ¶ 3; Gaffigan Decl. ¶ 2. During its investigation, Invisible Inc accessed Defendants’ Internet-based e-commerce stores and placed orders for various products from each Defendant, all products bearing one or more of the Tiffany Marks, for delivery to addresses in the Southern District of Florida. See Burns Decl. ¶ 4. In this way, Invisible Inc documented

1 The TRO authorized alternate service to Defendants by: (i) e-mail to their corresponding e-mail addresses and/or online contact form provided on the e-commerce store; (ii) e-mail to the registrar of record or marketplace platform for each of the e-commerce stores; or (iii) any other means reasonably calculated to give notice as permitted by the Court. (ECF No. 14 at 10-11). Defendants’ financial account information, as identified in Schedule A of this Order.2 Id. At the conclusion of the process, Invisible Inc sent Plaintiff detailed web pages of Defendants’ respective e-commerce stores for its review. See Toro Decl. ¶ 11; Burns Decl. ¶ 4; Gaffigan Decl. ¶ 2. Plaintiff’s representative reviewed the various branded products offered for sale and ordered by Invisible Inc by reviewing the Internet based e-commerce stores or the detailed web page captures

thereof, and determined the products were non-genuine, unauthorized versions of Plaintiff’s products. See Toro Decl. ¶¶ 10–13. Additionally, Plaintiff established that the Tiffany Marks are vital to its business, as the trademarks represent a significant value to its overall business and associated image. Toro Decl. ¶ 8. As a result, Plaintiff suffers irreparable harm to its goodwill, as well as a direct monetary loss, any time any third parties, including Defendants, sell counterfeit and infringing goods bearing identical or substantially similar trademarks. Id. Further, Plaintiff faces significant economic and logistical challenges in enforcing its trademark rights against the many unregulated and anonymous Internet-based e-commerce stores, like Defendants, selling counterfeit products, concealing their identities, and quickly abandoning and setting up new e-commerce stores to avoid

detection and/or paying Plaintiff damages. Toro Decl. ¶¶ 17-20. By benefiting from Plaintiff’s advertising and marketing strategies while unlawfully using the Tiffany Marks, Defendants are jointly obliterating the otherwise open and available marketplace space in which Plaintiff has the right to fairly market its goods and associated message. Toro Decl. ¶ 22. Thus, Defendants are causing individual, concurrent, and indivisible harm to Plaintiff and the consuming public by: (i) depriving Plaintiff of its right to fairly compete

2 On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Identification of Additional Payment Accounts Used By Defendant Numbers 29, 31, 38, and 45. See (ECF No. 22). The Additional Payment Accounts identified in that notice are also included on Schedule A of this Order.

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

Related

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. v. Homer Barrow
143 F. App'x 180 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson
147 F.3d 1301 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc.
261 F.3d 1188 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo v. Michael Schiavo
403 F.3d 1223 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.
505 U.S. 763 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
840 F.3d 1244 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
Commodores Entertainment Corporation v. Thomas McClary
879 F.3d 1114 (Eleventh Circuit, 2018)
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Christopher Alfieri
23 F.4th 1282 (Eleventh Circuit, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiffany-nj-llc-v-the-individuals-business-entities-and-unincorporated-flsd-2024.