Fashion design house Chloé won a sizeable award in an infringement suit against the person behind a series of Web sites that sold counterfeit Chloé goods. Interestingly enough, the award was not granted on the merits of the infringement argument, but rather, it was granted on a civil procedure hiccup. The defendant failed to answer the complaint in time, and with that, Chloé was granted the award.
A Federal Court in October 2009 entered a $7.2 million dollar default judgment against a Los Angeles supplier after he failed to respond to an infringement lawsuit filed by Chloé. In the initial suit in April 2006, Chloé alleged that an internet operator known as Queen Bee of Beverly Hills sold counterfeit goods through its Web sites. The suit was later amended once Chloé recognized the online business’ supplier behind the operation, and they were added as a defendant in the case. The decision to grant the default judgment hinged on the failure to enter a timely answer, rather than the actual infringement at issue in the suit. Because the supplier failed to formally enter an answer to the complaint within the given time, the judge entered a default judgment in favor of the design house.
The judgment award was determined in July 2009 by a Magistrate Judge. The court’s report concluded that Chloé was entitled to triple the amount of the online business’ supplier’s profits, or $7.2 million dollars. Seems only fair that Chloé get paid back the profits made by someone selling replicas of their stylish and original goods Chloé has established itself to produce. However, the case against Queen Bee of Beverly Hills was stayed once the firm declared bankruptcy and Chloé entered into a $15,000 settlement with another defendant. Maybe there will one day be a case where the court rules on the activity of these infringing Web sites rather than a court technicality.
cite:
http://www.caseclothesed.com/chloe-meets-civpro/
