Nigerians in Diaspora Organization Americas v. Ogbonnia et al
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM OPINION, FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy K Johnson) Parties notified.(sjones, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
August 22, 2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NIGERIANS IN DIASPORA
ORGANIZATION AMERICAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SKC OGBONNIA, HENRY CHIWUIKEM
IHEDIWA, AUDU ALI,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-3633
MEMORANDUM OPINION, FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
This matter was set for trial on August 21, 2018.
Plaintiff
appeared with witnesses and announced ready; Defendant SKC Ogbonnia
also appeared for trial.
Plaintiff and Defendant Ogbonnia reached
an agreement on the disposition of this action, which will be filed
with the court by separate document.
The case proceeded to trial against Defendants Henry Chiwuikem
Ihediwa and Audu Ali, who were not present, despite being sent
notices of the trial setting to their last known addresses.
Plaintiff has proven that it is the record owner of the
following
United
4,802,122
and
States
4,815,881.
Trademarks:
Plaintiff
4,711,119,
introduced
4,770,571,
evidence
that
Defendant Ihediwa misappropriated Plaintiff’s trademarks between
June 2016 and May 2017 by issuing press releases using the marks,
purportedly on behalf of Plaintiff, that notified the general
public that Plaintiff had been dissolved as an organization due to
its malfeasance,
which
Defendant
Ihediwa
knew
to
be
a
false
statement of material fact. The court finds that Plaintiff has met
its burden of showing infringement of its marks and the likelihood
of confusion based on that infringement and further finds that the
press releases contained a false designation of origin.
Plaintiff
also proffered testimony that it lost donations as a result of
these press releases and the resulting confusion over Plaintiff’s
ongoing viability.
Plaintiff
Ihediwa.
seeks a
permanent
injunction
against
Defendant
The court may enter a permanent injunction if Plaintiff
shows a likelihood of success on the merits, a substantial threat
of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, that injury
if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result in
the injunction is granted, and the grant of an injunction will not
disserve the public interest.
Paulsson Geophysical Svs., Inc. v.
Sigmar, 529 F.3d 303, 309 (5th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits and presented evidence of irreparable injury.
The burden
that would be imposed on Defendant Ihediwa is minimal in comparison
to the threatened injury to Plaintiff should Defendant Ihediwa
attempt to usurp Plaintiff’s trademarks and issue false press
releases in the future.
The court finds that the public interest
is served by requiring conformity with the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1051 et seq.
As to the irreparable injury prong, the court finds
that Defendant Ihediwa’s failure to appear for trial and his total
2
failure to defend this case after filing an answer suggests that he
does not take seriously the illegality of his infringing conduct.
It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant Henry
Chiwuikem
Ihediwa
indirectly
using
is
PERMANENTLY
Plaintiff’s
ENJOINED
trademarks
in
from
any
directly
manner
or
and/or
issuing materially false statements using Plaintiff’s trademarks in
any manner, or authorizing any third party to infringe any of
Plaintiff’s trademarks in any manner and/or issuing materially
false statements using Plaintiff’s trademarks in any manner.
No
evidence
was
offered
against
Defendant
Ali.
It
is
therefore ADJUDGED that Plaintiff take nothing against Defendant
Audu Ali.
All
other relief requested in herein DENIED.
Costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 are taxed against Defendant
Ihediwa.
The Bill of Costs must be filed within fourteen days of
entry of this Memorandum Opinion, Final Judgment and Permanent
Injunction.
This is a FINAL JUDGMENT.
SIGNED this 22nd day of August, 2018.
______________________________
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?