FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T APRI L 23, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 54 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 7- 22 93 7- CV-EGT MYSTIQUE, INC.,
Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r-Defe nd an tApp el le e,

ve rs us
13 8 INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defen da nt -Co un te r-Cl ai m an tApp el la nt , BANCO POPULAR NORTH AMERICA,
Defen da nt

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 23 , 20 10 )
Befo re CARNES, M ARCUS an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:Mysti qu e, In c. su ed 13 8 In te rn at io na l, In c. (“ 13 8 In te rn at io na l” ) fo r tra de m ark

in fri ng e men t an d rel at ed to rts

. Mysti qu e, In c. so ug ht can cel la ti on of th e Mysti qu e

tra de m ark reg is te red to 13 8 In te rn at io na l, al le gi ng th at Mysti qu e, In c. ha d be en us in g
th e mar k in co m

m erce pr io r to 13 8 In te rn at io na l’s us e an d reg is tra ti on
. 13 8

In te rn at io na l de fen de d th e la wsu it on th e ba si s of la ch es an d al le ge d in a co un te rcl ai m
th at Mysti qu e, In c. was th e in fri ng er. The pa rti es co ns en te d to res ol ut io n of th e cas e by a m ag is tra te jud ge an d fil ed cro ss -m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The m ag is tra te jud ge gr an te d Mysti qu e, In c. pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t, fin di ng th at Mysti qu e, In c.

us ed th e Mysti qu e m ark in co m m erce be fo re 13 8 In te rn at io na l reg is te red an d us ed it ;
th a t 13 8 In te rn at io na l in fri ng ed Mysti qu e, In c.’s m ark ; an d th at th e Mysti qu e

tra de m ark 13 8 In te rn at io na l ha d reg is te red m us t be can cel le d. The m ag is tra te jud ge
de ni ed 13 8 In te rn at io na l’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The reaf

te r, th e m ag is tra te jud ge he ld a tr ia l o n t he is su e o f da m ag es
. Afte r tri al , th e co ur t awa rd ed My st iq ue , In c. $2 ,95 0,0 00

. 13 8 In te rn at io na l ap pe al s. It arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng Mysti qu e, In c. pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t b ecau se th ere wer e ge nu in e is su es of fact

to be res ol ve d r e g a r di ng whe th er 13 8 In te rn at io na l us ed th e Mysti qu e m ark be fo re Mysti qu e, In c. di d s o. It arg ue s th at Mysti qu e, In c. sh ou ld be ba rred fro m reco ve ry

2by lach es . And , it arg ue s t ha t M y st iq ue , Inc . is no t en ti tl ed to da m ag es , a s a m at te r

of law, b ecau se My st iq ue , Inc . di d n ot reg is te r th e Mysti qu e m ark

. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud g men t b y ap pl y in g
th e sa m e le ga l st an da rd s us ed by th e di st ric t co ur t. Se e, e.g

. , Hil bu rn v. Mur at a Elec s.
N. Am., In c. , 18 1 F.3 d 12 20 , 1 2 2 5 ( 1 1 t h C ir. 19 99 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is

ap pr op ria te whe re “ ‘the re is no ge nu in e is su e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov in g
pa rty is en ti tl ed to a jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.’ ” W oo de n v. Bd. of Reg en ts of th e
Uni v. Sy s. of Ga. , 24 7 F.3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 7 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (q uo ti ng Fed

. R. Ci v. P.
56 (c))

. W e rev i e w th e tri al co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e la ch es de fen se fo r ab us e of
di sc ret io n. Se e Sa nd er

s v. Doo ly Co un ty , 24 5 F.3 d 12 89 , 12 91 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). In

co ns id eri ng 13 8 In te rn at io na l’s ch al le ng e to th e da m ag es award , we co ns id er de no vo
th e qu es ti on of th e av ai la bi li ty of da m ag es un de r th e Lan ha m Act. Se e Uni te d St at es 1

v. Pis to n e , 17 7 F.3 d 95 7, 95 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ) (“ The in te rp ret at io n of a st at ut e is a
qu es ti on of l aw su bjec t t o d e n ov o re vi ew.”)

W e affi rm , fin di ng no rev ers ib le e r r o r
. On th e reco rd co ns id ered by th e

m ag is tra te jud ge , th ere is no ge nu in e i s su e of m at eri al fact as to whe th er 13 8

In te rn at io na l us ed th e Mysti qu e m ark be fo re Mysti qu e, In c. Eve n if al l th e ev id en ce

138 I nterna tional challeng es the leg al availability of an awa rd of damag es, not the amount 1 of the da mag e aw ard.

313 8 In te rn at io na l ci te s in it s br ie fs is cred it ed , th at ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t as a m at te r

of la w to es ta bl is h 13 8 In te rn at io na l’s us e of th e m ark in co m m e r ce pr io r to Mysti qu e’s us e be c a u s e i t is on ly ev id en ce of 13 8 In te rn at io na l’s co m m un ic at io ns
wit h it s su pp li ers
. “ [N]ot ev ery tra ns po rt of a go od is su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h

own ers hi p rig ht s in a m ark

. To warra n t p r o t e ct io n, us e of a m ark ‘need no t ha ve
ga in ed wid e pu bl ic reco gn it io n,’ bu t ‘[s]ecret , un di sc lo s e d in te rn al sh ip m en ts are
ge ne ral ly in ad eq ua te .’ ” Pla ne ta ry Mot io n, In c. v. Tech pl os io n, In c. , 26 1 F.3d 11 88 , 11 96 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (q uo ti n g Blu e Bell , In c. v. Far ah Mfg

. Co

. , 50 8 F.2 d 12 60 , 12 65 (5 th Ci r. 19 75 )). “ Trad em ark cl ai m s ba se d up on sh ip m en ts fro m a pr od uc er’s pl an t to it s sal es off

ic e, an d v ic e v ers a, ha ve oft en be en di sa ll owe d.” Blu e Bell , 50 8
F.2 d a t 1 26 5. 2
And , th e co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g 13 8 In te rn at io na l’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e eq ui ta bl e gr ou nd of la c h e s
. 13 8 In te rn at io na l di d no t carr y it s
bu rd en of pr oo f; it di d no t pr ov e whe n Mysti qu e kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own of th e
in fri ng em en t of it s m ark

. Fai lu re to pr ov e th at fact is fat al to th e la ch es de fen se
. Se e
Ka so n In du s., In c. v. Co mpo ne nt Har dw ar e Gro up , In c. , 12 0 F.3 d 11 99 , 12 06 (1 1t h
Ci r. 19 97 ).

I n Bonner v. City of P richard , 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) , the Eleventh 2 Circuit adopted as binding prec edent all decisions handed down by the former Fifth Circuit prior to October 1, 1981.

4Fi na ll y , th e co ur t di d no t err in award in g da m ag es to Mysti qu e, In c. Dam ag es

m ay be award ed wher e, as he re, t he vi ol at io n i s on e of sec ti on 43 (a) o f th e Lan ha m Act, co di fie d at 15 U.S.C. § 11 25 (a). Reg is tra ti on of th e m ark is no t re qu ire d. Se e
1 5 U

. S

. C. § 11 17 (a) (“ W he n a vi ol at io n of an y rig ht of th e reg is tra nt of a m ar k

reg is te red in th e Pat en t an d Tra de m ark Offi ce, a vi ol at io n un de r se ct io n 11 25 (a) or (d ) of th i s t i t l e, or a wil lfu l vi ol at io n un de r se ct io n 11 25 (c) of th is ti tl e, sh al l ha ve
be en es ta bl is he d in an y ci vi l act io n ari si ng un de r th is ch ap te r, th e pl ai nt iff sh al l be

en ti tl ed , su bjec t to th e pr ov is io ns of se ct io ns 11 11 an d 11 14 of th is ti tl e, an d su bjec t

to th e pr in ci pl es of eq ui ty, to reco ve r (1 ) de fen da nt ’s pr of it s , ( 2 ) a n y da m ag es

su st ai ne d b y

th e p la in ti ff, an d (3 ) th e co st s o f th e act io n.” ).
AFFIR MED.

5