Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01081/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01081-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

AFL Telecommunications LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Fiberoptic Hardware, LLC, 

Defendant.

No. CV11-01081-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff AFL Telecommunications LLC has filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and 

costs. Docs. 65, 66. Defendant has not responded. The Court will exercise its discretion 

and deny the motion. 

 A district court has discretion to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party under 

the Lanham Act, but only in “exceptional cases.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); Gracie v. 

Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit construes the “exceptional 

circumstances” requirement narrowly. Id. “Exceptional circumstances can be found when 

the non-prevailing party’s case is groundless, unreasonable, vexatious, or pursued in bad 

faith.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Horphag Research Ltd. v. 

Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir.2003). 

 The Court entered a default judgment against Defendant and awarded more than 

$217,000 in damages when its counsel withdrew from this case. Doc. 63. Defense counsel 

stated that Defendant no longer could afford to litigate this case and was ceasing 

operations. Doc. 60. 

Case 2:11-cv-01081-DGC Document 67 Filed 12/03/12 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Plaintiff asks the Court to find that Defendant’s conduct was willful, malicious, and 

wanton, and therefore satisfies the “exceptional circumstances” requirement, because 

Plaintiff’s complaint contained those allegations and a default was entered. The Court 

notes, however, that Defendant denied those allegations in its answer. Doc. 33. 

 The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s allegations are correct merely because a 

default judgment was entered in this case. Where an award of fees is exceptional and the 

Court’s power to grant such an award is construed narrowly, the Court concludes that more 

than a default is needed for the Court to finds that exceptional circumstances exist. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs (Doc. 65) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 3rd day of December, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01081-DGC Document 67 Filed 12/03/12 Page 2 of 2