Platypus Wear Inc., et al v. Horizonte LTDA, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants PW Industries, Inc., Platypus Wear Inc., Playtypus Wear, Inc. and Alexandria Ponce DeLeon. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-11395

Date Filed: 07/11/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11395
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-20738-KMM
PLATYPUS WEAR INC., a Nevada Corporation,
PLATYPUS WEAR, INC., a California Corporation,
PW INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs-CounterDefendants-Appellants,
versus
HORIZONTE LTDA, a Brazilian limited partnership,
Defendant-CounterClaimant-Appellee,
FERNANDO MARIA AGONSTINHO CALDAS, JR.,
ROBERTO SILVA RAMOS,
DOES 1- 50.
S. L. CLARKE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 11, 2017)
Before CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges, and TITUS,* District
Judge.
_______________________________
*Honorable Roger W. Titus, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by
designation.

Case: 15-11395

Date Filed: 07/11/2017

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
This case was tried to a jury on Platypus’ claims, 1 among others, that
Horizonte “converted one or more of [its] trademarks and that Horizonte 2 aided
and abetted in the breach of a fiduciary duty owed to [Platypus],” Platypus Wear,
Inc. v. Horizonte Ltda., 558 F. Appx. 929, 931 (11th Cir. 2014). The jury found
for Platypus on those claims but awarded zero damages. Id. The jury found for
Horizonte on its counterclaims for, among other things, unfair and deceptive trade
practices, but, as it did with Platypus’ claims, the jury awarded Horizonte zero
damages.
After the jury returned its verdicts, Platypus sought declaratory and equitable
relief. It asked the District Court “to declare that certain documents purporting to
assign [its] trademarks to Horizonte were invalid and unenforceable, and to enjoin
Horizonte from claiming rights under the same.” Id. at n.6. The Court denied
Platypus’ requests,
concluding that it was precluded from granting them because
plaintiffs did not prevail on any of the claims that were submitted to
the jury. The district court reasoned that, because the jury found zero
damages on the several claims on which it found Horizonte liable, and
because proof of damages was a necessary element of each such
1

We refer to Platypus in identifying four plaintiffs and treat them collectively: Platypus
Wear, Inc., Platypus Wear Incorporated, PW Industries, Inc. and Alexandra Ponce De Leon.
2

We refer to Horizonte in identifying three defendants and treat them collectively:
Horizonte Fabricacao Distribuicao Importacao E Exportaco Ltda., a/k/a Horizonte Ltda.,
Fernando Caldas, Jr., and Roberto Ramos.
2

Case: 15-11395

Date Filed: 07/11/2017

Page: 3 of 3

claim, plaintiffs had failed to establish success on the merits, which
was a prerequisite to the requested relief.
Id. Platypus appealed, arguing that the District Court erred in refusing to grant it
the requested relief. We agreed that the Court erred in concluding that it lacked the
authority to enter equitable relief because the jury had found zero damages. We
therefore vacated its judgment, to the “extent that it denied declaratory and
equitable relief,” with this statement: “[t]he district court may entertain the
equitable claims of both parties. Of course, in exercising its broad discretion, the
district court may reach the same result.” Id. at 932.
On remand, the District Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declined to
issue any declaratory or equitable relief. Platypus appeals. We find no abuse in
the Court’s discretionary call, and accordingly affirm its judgment.
AFFIRMED.

3