Alcon Laboratories Inc v. Good Eyeglasses Optical et al

Filing 34

ORDER Granting 32 and 33 Stipulated Motions and Denying 7 Motion for Default as Moot. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (PL, Case Administrator)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., NO: 2:17-CV-54-RMP Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 v. GOOD EYEGLASSES OPTICAL, a British Columbia sole proprietorship; and FOCUS WORKS, LTD., a British Columbia corporation, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOOT 12 Defendants. 13 14 BEFORE THE COURT is the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Entry of 15 Injunction Order and Judgment, ECF No. 32, Stipulated Motion to Expedite, ECF 16 No. 33, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 7. The Court has 17 reviewed the relevant filings and is fully informed. 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (“Alcon”) commenced this action on 20 February 6, 2017, against Defendants Good Eyeglasses Optical and Focus Works 21 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOOT ~ 1 1 Ltd. (collectively “Defendants”) to recover monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and 2 permanent injunctive relief for Defendants’ willful and intentional trademark 3 infringement and unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1117, 4 and 1125(a), and Defendants’ violation of the Washington State Consumer 5 Protection Act, RCW 19.86.020, et seq. ECF No. 1. Defendants failed to appear 6 and defend. On May 19, 2017, the Clerk of the Court entered default judgment for 7 Plaintiff on all its claims. ECF No. 6. Counsel has now appeared for Defendants, 8 who stipulate to entry of this default judgment and injunction. Accordingly, the 9 Court now enters this default judgment against Defendants and permanent 10 11 injunction enjoining Defendants. The Court has jurisdiction over the captioned parties and the subject matter 12 of this action under 15 U.S.C. § 1121, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(2),1338(b), 13 1391(b), and Washington’s long-arm statute, RCW 4.28 et seq. The Defendants 14 stipulated to jurisdiction and venue in the United States District Court for the 15 Eastern District of Washington, and specifically waived all defenses and objections 16 to jurisdiction and venue. ECF No. 3. 17 Alcon Labs remains a top producer of contact lenses in the United States, 18 serving eye care professionals and their patients in more than 180 countries 19 worldwide. Alcon sells contact lenses and related products utilizing the following 20 United States trademarks, among others: 21 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOOT ~ 2 1 MARK REG. NO. RELEVANT GOODS CLAIMED 2 ALCON 4560685 Contact lenses 3 ALCON (stylized) 3964836 Solutions for use with contact lenses 4 ALCON (stylized) 3964835 Solutions for use with contact lenses 5 ALCON Solutions for use with contact lenses 3969109 6 7 These registered Alcon Marks and Alcon’s other well-known and renowned 8 brands of contact lenses are referred to hereinafter as the “Alcon Marks.” 9 Independent of the foregoing registrations, Alcon is the owner and holder of all 10 common-law rights associated with the Alcon Marks, including nationwide 11 common-law trademarks. The Alcon Marks have been used in commerce 12 continuously in the United States by Alcon prior to Defendants’ use. 13 Alcon exercises great care in selecting its trademarks and protecting them in 14 the marketplace. For example, Alcon carefully selects authorized distributors and 15 third-parties with the knowledge and expertise required to properly provide contact 16 lenses to practitioners, authorized retail outlets, and ultimately the end consumer. 17 This is critical to protecting the Alcon Marks and the end users of its products. 18 Alcon has spent millions of dollars in advertising and over 70 years creating 19 consumer recognition and confidence in its Alcon brand, all of which relies in 20 large part on recognition of, and confidence in, products bearing the Alcon 21 trademarks. These substantial expenditures of time, money, and effort have ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOOT ~ 3 1 resulted in a reputation for exceptionally high quality products, including contact 2 lenses. 3 Alcon has also developed marketing strategies and designed packaging, 4 promotional materials, and specific products for the market in the United States, 5 consistent with its reputation and high quality. 6 Alcon vigorously protects its reputation and goodwill by maintaining the 7 highest standards in products, appearance, and customer service. Genuine Alcon 8 products are manufactured for sale in the United States and abroad, and are sold to 9 authorized distributors for re-sale in each country where the contact lenses are 10 shipped. Alcon has expended significant sums of money, time, and effort in 11 carefully choosing authorized parties to sell Alcon’s products and ensuring the 12 authorized parties comply with Alcon’s stringent distribution and resale guidelines 13 and with state and federal laws and regulations. The manner in which Alcon 14 contact lenses are distributed and sold is closely monitored to ensure compliance 15 with the laws and health and safety requirements of each country. 16 For example, in the United States contact lenses can only be sold with a 17 valid prescription issued by a U.S.-licensed eye-care professional. The online sale 18 of contact lenses is subject to greater scrutiny and is governed and closely 19 regulated by the Federal Trade Commission’s Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers 20 Act 15 U.S.C. §102 and the “Contact Lens Rule” 16 C.F.R. §§315 and 456, which 21 prohibits the sale of contact lenses without a valid prescription from a U.S.ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOOT ~ 4 1 licensed eye care professional. Alcon does not condone the sale of contact lenses to 2 consumers in the United States without a valid prescription issued in accordance 3 with state and federal law. Alcon would never unwillingly jeopardize the health 4 and safety of U.S. consumers nor risk its own reputation and goodwill. 5 Defendants imported into the United States, promoted, offered for sale, sold, 6 distributed and advertised on the internet and through other media, contact lenses 7 bearing the Alcon Marks that are materially different from authorized Alcon 8 products (Infringing Contact Lenses). 9 Enforcing Alcon’s trademark rights is necessary to protect U.S. consumers 10 from the health and safety risks inherent in the Infringing Contact Lenses. Indeed, 11 U.S. Consumers rely on trademark laws to protect them from these very types of 12 risks. U.S. consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of Defendant’s 13 Infringing Contact Lenses, and to associate Defendant’s Infringing Contact Lenses 14 with Alcon and with authorized Alcon products. Since any deficiencies in the 15 Infringing Contact Lenses may be attributed to Alcon, the material difference 16 between Alcon’s authorized products and the Infringing Contact Lenses is likely to 17 create a negative impression of Alcon and its products to U.S. consumers, and to 18 tarnish and harm Alcon’s reputation and goodwill. 19 DEFAULT JUDGMENT 20 On May 19, 2017, the Clerk of the Court entered default judgment for 21 Plaintiff on all its claims. ECF No. 6. The terms of the default judgment state: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOOT ~ 5 1 1. Judgment Creditor: Alcon Laboratories, Inc. 2 2. Judgment Debtors, Joint & Several: Good Eyeglasses Optical, a British 3 Columbia sole proprietorship, and Focus Works Ltd., a British Columbia 4 corporation. 5 1. Principal Amount of Judgment: $163,175.00 6 2. Reasonable Attorney Fees: $28,000 7 3. Costs: $1,644.67 8 4. Post judgment interest rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) 9 10 INJUNCTION ORDER Alcon’s remedy at law is inadequate to compensate it fully for its injuries. 11 Unless enjoined, Defendant’s actions will continue, causing irreparable damage to 12 Alcon. It would be extremely difficult or impossible to estimate the amount of 13 compensation necessary to afford Alcon complete monetary relief for continuing 14 acts damaging Alcon’s intangible assets and goodwill. Multiple judicial 15 proceedings would be required in the absence of appropriate injunctive relief. 16 Absent injunctive relief, the consuming public will continue to be harmed by the 17 confusion caused by Defendant’s advertising, sale, and distribution of the 18 materially different Infringing Contact Lenses and by the potential health and 19 safety risks caused by Defendant’s actions. 20 21 Alcon is entitled to injunctive relief on each of its pleaded claims for willful and intentional trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of 15 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOOT ~ 6 1 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1117, and 1125(a), as well as Defendants’ violation of the 2 Washington State Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.020, et seq. The Court 3 entered default judgment for Plaintiff on all its claims. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. 6 7 8 9 10 11 The Stipulated Motion for Entry of Injunction Order and Judgment, ECF No. 32, and Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 33, are GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to All Defendants, ECF No. 7, is DENIED AS MOOT. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order, enter the Injunction and Judgment, provide copies to counsel, and close this case. DATED September 12, 2017. 12 13 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOOT ~ 7

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?