Lawrence G. Townsend Intellectual Property Lawyer
Schedule a consultation
415-882-3288
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter

Part 2: Harley-Davidson wins $19.2 million in counterfeiting case

News and Notes Focused on the 3 Public Faces of IP Law

  • Brand Image Protection - Trademark Law
  • Visual Image Protection - Copyright Law
  • Personal Image Protection - Right of Publicity Law

The Image Protection Law blog has been created in order to share stories and information on the legal aspects of: 1) the marketplace reputation of a company or product captured in its trademark, 2) published or publicly-displayed artwork, photography, and any created visual design, and 3) use of a person's photograph or likeness for product promotion or other commercial purposes.

The "IP3" share at least one thing in common: Image is everything. In these posts let's look at what that means in the realm of intellectual property in the news, but let's also be prepared to explore if there's something more beyond "everything." Don't forget, the intellectual in "intellectual property" doesn't mean smart or brainy, although by nature true creators often are. The word is used to refer to any creation, i.e., a "product of the mind." While this blog will be regularly updated, you are encouraged to share your thoughts on these posts.

In Part 1 of this post, we talk about the recent federal case of H-D U.S.A., LLC v. SunFrog, LLC, out of Wisconsin. The judge found, among other things, that SunFrog had engaged in counterfeiting when it placed images and phrases trademarked by Harley-Davidson on shirts and other items sold through SunFrog's website. 

That post describes the judge's rejection of SunFrog's argument that it could not have engaged in counterfeiting because the goods on which they printed Harley-Davidson marks were so shoddy that people would know were knockoffs.

Statutory damages 

Counterfeiting is an egregious kind of trademark violation, so federal law allows the injured party to choose to receive statutory damages based on the number of types of goods for sale, sold or distributed that were involved. If the plaintiff elects statutory damages, compensatory damages for actual financial losses are not an option. 

As the judge explained, "the Lanham Act allows statutory damages to be large even when actual damages are small ..." She notes that in this case, actual damages are difficult to prove, especially the "significant potential for damage to Harley-Davidson's goodwill and reputation" from its marks entering the marketplace on low quality goods "bearing offensive or mutilated settings of its trademarks ..." 

Statutory damages, then, can punish damaging counterfeiting behavior even when the actual monetary loss is not excessive. In addition, statutory damages are meant to make potential counterfeiters think twice by holding offenders out as examples to deter others. 

The calculation 

Courts have broad discretion to consider the unique facts in a counterfeiting case to determine appropriate statutory damages. The formula is $1,000 up to $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods used. If the counterfeiting was willful, the upper limit jumps to $2 million. 

Willful infringement means that the infringer knew what it was doing or recklessly disregarded the possibility that it was infringing. Knowledge can be imputed when an infringer purposefully ignores the nature of its infringing behavior, ignores communication from the mark's owner, does not consult a lawyer or considers the matter a "nuisance." 

The court found that SunFrog acted willfully because it engaged in "willful blindness," said it had taken steps to stop infringement when it had not and violated a preliminary injunction (court order) that it stop infringing. 

However, she believed that SunFrog did not deserve the maximum penalty, which could put it out of business at $128 million (64 types times $2 million per mark). The company was not selling through "illicit channels" and is "not a company comprised of career criminals." Finally, SunFrog is making "slow but significant" progress in eliminating counterfeiting. 

Accordingly, the judge ordered a statutory damage award of $19,200,000 (64 types times $300,000 per mark).

 

 

 

 

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Contact Me to Discuss Your Specific Concerns

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy