Eko Brands v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises Inc et al

Filing 187

MINUTE ORDER denying Defendant's 180 Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment, or Alternatively for a New Trial. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly.(MW)

Case 2:17-cv-00894-TSZ Document 187 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

EKO BRANDS, LLC,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

C17-894 TSZ

ADRIAN RIVERA MAYNEZ
ENTERPRISES, INC.; and
ADRIAN RIVERA,

12

MINUTE ORDER

Defendants.

13

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
14 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(1)
Defendants’ motion to alter or amend judgment or alternatively for a new
trial, docket no. 180, is DENIED. Defendants’ motion is premised on a misreading of the
United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.,
140 S. Ct. 1492 (2020). Defendants contend that Romag rendered “obsolete and
erroneous” the legal standard pursuant to which the Court awarded to plaintiff certain
profits earned by defendants. The Court premised the disgorgement of profits on a
finding of willfulness. See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at ¶¶ 32-60 (docket
no. 149). Contrary to defendants’ assertion, the Romag Court did not cast any doubt on
the validity of an award of profits that is based on willful infringement. Rather, in
Romag, the Supreme Court held that, to recover a defendant’s profits under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1117(a), a plaintiff need not necessarily prove willfulness. See 140 S. Ct. at 1495-97.
In other words, in this case, plaintiff might have been entitled to the same disgorgement
of profits even if willful infringement had not been shown. Willfulness having been
established, however, the Court appropriately applied “principles of equity” to award
certain profits attributable to the trademark infringement. See 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

Case 2:17-cv-00894-TSZ Document 187 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 2

1

(2)
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of
record and to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

2
Dated this 4th day of June, 2020.
3
William M. McCool
Clerk

4
5

s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2