芬迪 Adele S.R.L. v. 伯葡京赌钱炸金花 Coat Factory, No. 06 Civ. 85 (LBS), 2010 WL 431509 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2010), 的 United States District Court for 的 Southern District of New York, in light of 的 prior 1987 injunction prohibiting defendant 伯葡京赌钱炸金花 Coat Factory ("Burlington")在其商店中销售仿冒的Fendi产品,最近认为,继续销售带有原告Fendi Adele S.R.L.商标的仿冒手袋。 ("Fendi")违反了先前的命令,被地方法院蔑视’s prior order, and awarded treble damages against 伯葡京赌钱炸金花. This decision provides yet another reminder of how courts have dealt harshly with retail vendors who have willfully purchased and sold counterfeit goods, especially where 的 re was a prior injunction against violation of 的 芬迪 商标.
 

芬迪 brought trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution claims against 伯葡京赌钱炸金花. The district court found that 伯葡京赌钱炸金花 not 上 ly continued to sell 芬迪-branded items in contempt of 的 1987 injunction, but 43人中有39人 芬迪-branded items sold by 伯葡京赌钱炸金花 or purchased from 的 ir inventory were counterfeit.

根据法院陈述的事实’芬迪(Fendi)和伯葡京赌钱炸金花(Burlington)订立禁令,禁止被告伯葡京赌钱炸金花外套厂("Burlington") from selling counterfeit 芬迪 products in its stores in 1987. Counsel for Louis Vuitton Malletier (a company that has a common parent with 芬迪) advised 伯葡京赌钱炸金花’s in-house counsel 上 April 12, 2004 that a 芬迪 handbag purchased from 伯葡京赌钱炸金花 was counterfeit.   Burlington’公司的内部律师于1987年签署了禁止令的协议。 During 的 next year following 的 meeting, 芬迪 sent 伯葡京赌钱炸金花 two letters formally placing 伯葡京赌钱炸金花 上 notice that it was selling counterfeit 芬迪 goods and demanding that 伯葡京赌钱炸金花 cease and desist. Nonetheless, 芬迪-branded items still could be found at 伯葡京赌钱炸金花’的商店,直到2008年3月。 

芬迪’s first two claims alleged counterfeiting in violation of U.S.C. 15§1114(a) and false designation of origin in violation of U.S.C. 15§1125(a). To prevail 上 的 se claims, 芬迪 had to establish that: (1) it had a valid mark entitled to protection under 的 Lanham Act; and (2) 伯葡京赌钱炸金花 used a similar mark in commerce in a way that would likely cause confusion among 的 relevant consuming public.  看到 路易威登马利蒂(Louis Vuitton Malletier)诉杜尼(Dooney)& Bourke, 在 c.,454 F.3d 108,114-15(2d Cir.2006)。  关于第一个要素,法院认为,FENDI和FF会标商标均为有权保护的有效商标,并已在广告中广泛宣传并被视为"着名的时尚象征。"  关于第二个要素,法院认为,因为"假冒商标本质上令人困惑,"法院只需确定所涉物品是伪造的,以及被告是否已分发,提出要出售或出售这些物品。  看到 Gucci Am。,Inc.诉免税服装,286 F. Supp。2d 284,287(S.D.N.Y. 2003)。 伯葡京赌钱炸金花既不怀疑有争议的商品是从其零售商店购买的,也没有提供任何可信的证据证明所涉及的商品是真正的商品而不是假冒商品。 Burlington has attempted to rely upon a letter which claimed that 的 goods were genuine and 芬迪 responded that 的 letter had been forged.

伯葡京赌钱炸金花 asserted an affirmative defense and counterclaim seeking cancellation of 芬迪’的商标"naked licensing" doctrine. Burlington contended that 芬迪 had not exercised sufficient quality control as 的 licensor of its marks and that, as a result, 芬迪 had 它的权利。 伯葡京赌钱炸金花认为芬迪’的制造商未经其批准就分销和销售不合格的袋子,并且此类Fendi产品并不总是符合Fendi’的质量控制标准。 具体而言,伯葡京赌钱炸金花声称"a witness" saw a "bolt of fabric"在装配仓库中,这对于芬迪来说不应该存在’s "one kit per bag" assembly procedure. 法院没有说服法院,并认为芬迪已提供足够的证据证明其全面的质量控制机制。 法院认为,单项指控的不遵守这些机制的事件不足以支持"naked licensing" 的 ory. 法院的结论是,由于伯葡京赌钱炸金花出售的商品是伪造的,伯葡京赌钱炸金花有责任对假冒商品和虚假的原产地名称负责。

芬迪(Fendi)除其他补救措施外,还试图牟取利润和三倍损害赔偿。 在涉及假冒商标的案件中,如果法院在知道假冒商标的商标或名称是假冒商品的情况下,法院裁定伪造商标的人故意将商标或名称用于销售或分销商品,则法院有权裁定三倍利润或损害赔偿。 15 U.S.C. §1117(b). 法院裁定伯葡京赌钱炸金花’芬迪之后未能调查芬迪品牌商品的性质’的两封停止和终止函(根据1987年的禁令)和伯葡京赌钱炸金花’未能遵守其内部程序表明伯葡京赌钱炸金花"willfully blind." 在确定伯葡京赌钱炸金花采取了自愿行动之后,法院随后裁定,芬迪有权获得三倍的损害赔偿金,约160万美元的判决前利息和250万美元的利润损失。

芬迪 裁决是全国服装设计师的胜利,但也为那些可能在不调查商品来源或货真价实的情况下销售假冒商品的折扣零售商和廉价连锁店提供了一个警示。 零售商需要注意不要"把头埋在沙子里"因为这可能导致索赔"willful blindness." 取而代之的是,零售商需要仔细调查其商店内所售商品的来源和真实性,以避免严重的风险,即故意侵权可能会造成三倍的损失。 The 芬迪 此案还应向设计人员发出警告,即仿冒者可能会提出反诉,并根据《"naked licensing" 的 ory. 为了防止这种反诉成功,应注意采取全面的质量控制措施,并确保所有与许可证有关的制造,分销和批准均受到严格监控。