Balkrishna Setty et al. v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington grants in part Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment and a permanent injunction in a dispute involving allegedly deceptive use of a Bengaluru address on machine-made incense products. The Court finds viable claims under the Lanham Act and Washington Consumer Protection Act, awards $4,931,388.00 in damages, $3,771,777.95 in prejudgment interest, and $802,421.48 in attorney fees and costs, and considers injunctive relief. The order denies an requested injunction concerning communications about Plaintiffs’ mark and trade dress non-infringement.

Holdings

1. Default judgment was warranted on Plaintiffs' Lanham Act false-designation-of-origin, false-advertising, and Washington Consumer Protection Act claims because the well-pleaded allegations established viable claims and six of the seven Eitel factors favored judgment.
2. Plaintiffs were entitled to $4,931,388.00 in damages based on Defendant's net profits attributable to infringing sales.
3. Plaintiffs were entitled to $3,771,777.95 in prejudgment interest because the damages claim was sufficiently liquidated and the amount could be determined from Defendant's sales and costs.
4. Plaintiffs were entitled to $685,865.90 in attorney fees and $116,555.58 in costs and expenses under the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
5. A permanent injunction was warranted, and Defendant was enjoined from displaying Plaintiffs' Bengaluru address or any confusingly similar variation on products, packaging, websites, or advertising.

Questions Presented

1. Whether default judgment should be entered on Plaintiffs' Lanham Act false-designation-of-origin and false-advertising claims and Washington Consumer Protection Act claim.
2. Whether Plaintiffs established entitlement to damages based on Defendant's infringing sales.
3. Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest on the damages award.
4. Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees and costs under the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
5. Whether Plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for a permanent injunction.
6. Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction concerning Defendant's communications asserting that Plaintiffs' use of the mark was unauthorized.

Disposition

other