4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. N.Y. & Co., Docket Nos. 17-2398 (L)

Citation933 F.3d 202
Decision Date08 August 2019
Docket NumberDocket Nos. 17-2398 (L),August Term, 2018,17-2399 (XAP)
Parties 4 PILLAR DYNASTY LLC, Reflex Performance Resources Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees–Cross-Appellants, v. NEW YORK & COMPANY, INC., New York & Company Stores, Inc., Defendants-Appellants–Cross-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

David H. Bernstein (Jared I. Kagan, on the brief), Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, for Defendants-AppellantsCross-Appellees.

Aaron J. Solomon (Darren Oved, Michael Kwon, on the brief), Oved & Oved LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-AppelleesCross-Appellants.

Before: Lynch, Carney, and Droney, Circuit Judges.

Carney, Circuit Judge:

In this trademark infringement case brought under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1111 et seq. , Defendants-Appellants–Cross-Appellees New York & Company, Inc., and New York & Company Stores, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants" or "NY & C") appeal from a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J. ), entered after a jury trial, awarding Plaintiffs-Appellees–Cross-Appellants 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC and Reflex Performance Resources Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") an amount equal to Defendants’ gross profits from sales of yoga clothing and activewear that infringed Plaintiffs"Velocity" trademark.

On appeal, Defendants contend primarily that the District Court erred in substantially denying their post-trial motions. They argue that (1) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to show that Defendants acted willfully in their infringing actions, a prerequisite for an award of disgorgement of profits; and that (2) to obtain such an award, Plaintiffs were required and yet failed to demonstrate actual consumer confusion. Defendants further contend that the District Court abused its discretion by concluding that this was an "exceptional" case under certain provisions of the Lanham Act, see 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), and awarding Plaintiffs attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest on the disgorgement award. For their part, on their cross-appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the District Court abused its discretion by amending the first-entered judgment to eliminate the trebled portions of its profits award.

We conclude that the District Court did not clearly err in determining that the Defendants’ infringing acts were willful, as well as when it amended the initially-entered judgment to remove the trebled portion of the profits award. We further reject Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs were required to demonstrate actual consumer confusion as a prerequisite to a profits award, and clarify that, under the Lanham Act, a district court may award to a plaintiff trademark holder the profits made by a willful infringer, without requiring that the plaintiff demonstrate actual consumer confusion. See George Basch Co. v. Blue Coral, Inc. , 968 F.2d 1532 (2d Cir. 1992). We therefore affirm the District Court’s judgment in these respects.

We vacate, however, the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest to Plaintiffs and its determination that this was an "exceptional" case under the Lanham Act. While this appeal was pending, we held that the standard for determining an "exceptional" case under the Patent Act, see Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. , 572 U.S. 545, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 188 L.Ed.2d 816 (2014), applies also to cases brought under the Lanham Act, see Sleepy’s LLC v. Select Comfort Wholesale Corp. , 909 F.3d 519 (2d Cir. 2018). Because the District Court applied a prior standard, under which a finding of willfulness determined the right to attorneys’ fees absent mitigating circumstances, and was not in a position to apply our holding concerning Octane Fitness , we remand the cause to the District Court to allow it to apply the more flexible Octane Fitness standard in the first instance.

BACKGROUND1

Reflex Performance Resources Inc. ("Reflex"), a company owned by Behrooz Hedvat and his two brothers, designs and sells women’s activewear under the registered trademark "Velocity." Reflex’s offerings include a line of leggings, capris, sports bras, tank tops, and hooded sweatshirts. Acting through the related entity 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC ("4 Pillar"),2 Hedvat applied to register the Velocity trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") in 2012. In 2014, the USPTO approved the trademark for use in "clothing and performance wear."

Reflex does not operate any brick-and-mortar stores—rather, it sells its clothing wholesale to retailers such as TJ Maxx, Marshalls, Ross, and Foot Locker, and to customers online, through its own website and third-party sites such as Amazon. Reflex maintains a Manhattan showroom, where prospective wholesale buyers can view a "look book" and examine samples of Reflex’s products.

NY & C is a specialty women’s apparel retailer operating hundreds of retail stores across the United States. It sells branded clothing both through its stores and its website. In 2016, Reflex and 4 Pillar sued NY & C for trademark infringement, alleging that an NY & C product line of women’s activewear that it labelled "NY & C Velocity" infringed the "Velocity" trademark controlled by 4 Pillar and licensed to Reflex.

The case went to a trial by jury.3 Plaintiffs called Hedvat as their sole witness. He testified that, at some point in 2015, a potential customer came to his office and asked him if he had licensed the "Velocity" mark to NY & C. Hedvat replied that he had not. He told the jury that he was "extremely surprised" by the question, and that it prompted him to visit NY & C’s website. App’x 250.

There, Hedvat discovered the "NY & C Velocity" product line and formed the belief that the line infringed his companies’ Velocity trademark. In his view, Defendants were selling the "exact" same type of products as his company; marketing them to the same demographic groups at a similar price; and unlawfully using the Velocity trademark to do so. App’x 253. Hedvat testified that, acting through counsel, he demanded that NY & C cease and desist from selling these products under the "NY & C Velocity" name and they had not done so.4

Hedvat conceded that Reflex’s sales of Velocity products actually increased between 2014 and 2016, including during the period after which he discovered NY & C’s allegedly infringing use. He further explained that, while other companies also had made arguably infringing use of the name, he was dealing with any possible infringement "one by one" and considered NY & C to be particularly important because it was "the big fish." App’x 275.

After Hedvat concluded his testimony, the parties stipulated on the record that Defendants’ gross profits from the sale of products bearing the NY & C Velocity trademark were $1,864,337.29. Plaintiffs then rested their case, and Defendants unsuccessfully moved for judgment as a matter of law. App’x 444. In an unexpected development following the court’s denial of their motion, Defendants rested their case without presenting any evidence or testimony, and the case went to the jury.

This turn of events would have surprised observers because, in his opening statement, Defendantscounsel focused heavily on the expected testimony of two witnesses who would appear for NY & C: Christine Munley, NY & C’s head of merchandising, and Yelena Monzina, the company’s creative director. Counsel previewed that Munley would testify to never having heard of Reflex’s "Velocity" branded apparel despite her extensive expertise in the market. For her part, Monzina would testify that, before the "NY & C Velocity" product line was released, she conducted a search that turned up Plaintiffs’ Velocity trademark, as well as many other uses of the word "Velocity" in the apparel world. She would aver, however, that she saw no chance of consumer confusion between NY & C’s and Reflex’s product lines. During closing arguments, Defendantscounsel offered the jury no explanation for the failure to call these—or any other—witnesses.5

The jury found that NY & C had infringed Reflex’s trademark. At the District Court’s request, it also rendered an "advisory verdict" that NY & C’s infringement was willful. App’x 522. In open court after these verdicts were rendered, the District Court announced its adoption of the willfulness verdict and advised that it would issue a written opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law shortly. The court also informed the parties, without stating its reasoning, that it would direct that judgment be entered for three times the amount of the gross profits stipulated as related to the NY & C Velocity product line, which, as noted above, were over $1.8 million. Accordingly, the court entered judgment against NY & C in the amount of $5,593,011.87.

Upon Defendants’ timely request, the District Court stayed execution of the judgment pending post-trial motion practice. Defendants then moved for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and to amend or alter the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). They urged that: (1) there was no legal basis for an award of Defendants’ profits because Plaintiffs had not introduced evidence of either willful infringement or actual consumer confusion; and (2) the Lanham Act did not authorize an award that trebled Defendants’ related profits. Plaintiffs, in turn, moved for an additional award of attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest.

Not long after, the District Court issued an "Opinion, Order, and Amended Judgment" setting forth both its decision on the partiespost-trial motions and its findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the willfulness issue. 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. New York & Co., Inc. , 257 F. Supp. 3d 611 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). The court denied DefendantsRule 50(b) motion, holding that the record contained sufficient circumstantial evidence of willful infringement to support its award and that Second Circuit precedent did not require a showing of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
98 cases
  • Khan v. Addy's BBQ LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 6, 2019
    ...Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. , 317 F.3d 209, 217 (2d Cir. 2003), abrogated in part on other grounds by 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. New York & Co., Inc. , 933 F.3d 202, 215-16 (2d Cir. 2019), "and as such is generally weak unless there is evidence of secondary meaning."10 Patsy's Brand , 317 F.3d......
  • Tulis v. Gordos N. Rest. Corp. (In re Gordos Rest. Corp.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 4, 2022
    ...215. Factors to consider, in addition to the willfulness of the infringement, which neither is necessary for a fee award nor mandates it, id. at 216, include "frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal components of the case), and the need in partic......
  • Focus Prods. Grp. Int'l v. Kartri Sales Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 22, 2022
    ...the infringement; (4) any delay by 135 plaintiff; and (5) plaintiffs clean (or unclean) hands." 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. N.Y. & Co., 933 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing George Basch Co., 968 F.2d at 1540). "[T]he statute's invocation of equitable principles as guideposts in the assessme......
  • Tulis v. Gordos N. Rest. Corp. (In re Gordos Rest. Corp.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 4, 2022
    ...the avoidance of any unduly "inadequate or excessive" award, as expressly referenced in the statute. 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. N.Y. & Co. , 933 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2019) ; Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co. , 919 F.3d 869, 875-76 (5th Cir. 2019) ; 4 Gilson on Trademarks § 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Public Policy Argument Against Trademark Licensee Estoppel and Naked Licensing.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 85 No. 4, September 2020
    • September 22, 2020
    ...901 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2018); Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303 (3d Cir. 2014); 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. N.Y. & Co., 933 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2019); Verisign, Inc. v. XYZ.COM LLC, 891 F.3d 481 (4th Cir. 2014); SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., 839 F.3d 1179 (en ban......
  • Case Comments
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association New Matter: Intellectual Property Law (CLA) No. 44-4, December 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...not abuse its discretion in withdrawing its award of treble profits after a motion for reconsideration. 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. NY. & Co., 933 F.3d 202, 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 294676 (2d Cir. 2019).[Page 52]TRADEMARKS - FOREIGN EQUIVALENTS "The doctrine of foreign equivalents should generally not ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT