This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Trademark Infringement
False Designation of Origin

Spectrum Brands Inc. v. Vivo Distributors Inc., Vladislav Pavolotskiy, and Does 1-10

Published: Nov. 5, 2021 | Result Date: Oct. 12, 2021 | Filing Date: Jul. 21, 2021 |

Case number: 2:21-cv-05922-PA-PLA Bench Decision –  $450,000

Judge

Percy Anderson

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven E. Lauridsen
(Tucker Ellis LLP)


Defendant

Terry D. Shaylin
(Karasiik Law Group)


Facts

Spectrum Brands, Inc. is a global consumer goods conglomerate that manufactures, distributes, and sells high-quality residential home hardware and locksets under the Baldwin and Kwikset trademarks. For its Baldwin-branded products, Spectrum advertises them to be beautiful and endures the rigors of time. For its Kwikset-branded products, Spectrum advertises them to be the leading residential lock that makes homeowners feel safe since 1946. Such products are sold through authorized resellers and its trademarks are owned by Spectrum. Vivo Distributors and Vladislav Pavolotskiy (Vivozone) is a California corporation that operated an Amazon.com storefront selling Baldwin and Kwikset products without Spectrum's authorization. Spectrum brought an action against Vivozone seeking injunctive relief and damages alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants acquired plaintiff's products through unauthorized means and resell them without warranties, customer support, or quality controls. Plaintiff contended that defendants' practices have harmed their good will. Plaintiff contended that defendants have been selling plaintiff's products without authorization. Plaintiff contended that defendants' practices have infringed on their trademark. Plaintiff contended defendants' actions have brought upon a false designation of origin. Plaintiff contended defendants engaged in unfair competition.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all of the contentions.

Result

The court granted the parties' stipulation and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff on all claims asserted in the complaint and that defendants' conduct constituted trademark and service mark infringement. Plaintiff is awarded $450,000 in damages and defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages. Defendants are permanently enjoined, except as authorized by the fair used doctrine, from using plaintiff's trademarks and selling or marketing any of plaintiff's products. Defendants are also permanently enjoined from using any website containing any reference to plaintiff's trademark.


#137998

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390