## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 1569 G ABB AN ELLI A CC O RD ION S & I MPO RT S, L .L .C ., P la intif f-A pp ellee, v.
D I T T A G ABB AN ELLI U B A L DO D I E L I O G ABBANELL I, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 02 C4048

—Jam es B. Z agel, Judge
.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 21, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 30, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h is sui t under the Lanham A ct, 15 U
. S. C. §§ 1051 e tseq ., g r o w s o u t o f a p ro tr ac te d fam ily di spu te o ve r t r ade m ar ks. T he di st r i ctj udg e, o n the pl ainti ff’ s m o ti o n f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t, a war ded th e pl ainti ff, whi ch we’ l l c al l “ Am er i ca n Gabb an el l i, ” a per m an en t i nj u n c tion, dam age s, and att or neys’ fees . The defendant, w hi ch w e’ l l cal l “I tal i an Gabbanel l i, ” a pp eal s.2 N o. 08

- 1569 Am er i ca n Gabb an el l i b eg an l i f e i n the mid- 19 60 s as the U .S. d ist rib u to r for th e pr ed ec es so r of Ita lian G ab b an elli, a m anufa cture r ofa c c ordio ns i n I tal y. I n 199 6 a nd 19 97 A m er i can Gabbanel l i o btained re gi ste re d U

. S. tr adem ar ks o n th e n a me “ Gab b a n e l l i ” f o r u s e o n a c c o r d i o ns a nd bega n i m port i ng ac cor dio ns desi gn ed to i ts speci fi cati ons and m anufa cture d by I tal i an Gabbanel li and o ther com panie s. In 19 99 A m er i can Gabbanel l i sued I tal i an Ga b b a n e l l i i n a n I t a l i a n c o u r t, c o mpl a i n i n g a b o ut t he I t a l i a n c o mp a n y ’ s u s i n gth e I n t e r n e td o ma i n n a me w w w .ga b b an elli.co m an d ad ve rt isin g t h e G ab b an elli tr adem ar k o verth e I nter net. The defendant w on that sui t, wh i ch w as f ol l owed by two m or e t ra dem ar k s uit s i n the I tal i an co urt, o ne byea ch ofthe parti es. T he pa rties settled th eir d ifferenc es (they th ou gh t!) l ate r that year b y an agr eem ent that g ave A m er i can G abb an ell i th e exc lusive ri gh t to use th e G abb an e llim ark i n N or th A m er i ca and I tal i an Gabbanel l i th e e xcl usi ve r i g htt o us e i t i n I ta l y . The a g r ee m en t pr o vi ded tha t “a ny furtherco ntro ver sy” would be re so lved byarbi tr ati on cond ucted i n I tal y in the I tal i an l anguage , with e ach partyto a pp oi nt an arbi tr ato r and the t w o arbi tr ato rs to appointa thi r d a rb i t r a t o r, wh o wo ul d b e the c ha i rm an of t h e a rb itr at ion p an el. A “fur the r c o nt r o v e r s y ” s o o n a r o s e a nd e a c h par ty ap p oi nt ed ana rbi tr at o r . Butf o r une xpl aine d r ea so ns the thi rd arbi tr ato r has nev erbee n appoi nted and no arbi tr atio n h as ev er be en co n d u c te d . In st e a d , I ta lian G ab b an elli fi l ed another sui t in the Ita l i an co urt, i n M ay 2002 , see ki ng a tr ansferof A m eri can Gabbanel l i ’ s U.S

. tr ade-N o. 08

- 1569 3

m ar k s to i t. Re ce nt l y tha t co ur t i ss ue d i ts j ud g m en t, a nd it i s in I talian G abb an ell i’ s favor. T h e p re se n t s u it w a s file d by A m er ica n G ab b an elli in J an ua r y 2 00 2 i n a fede r aldi st r i ctcou rt i n Te xa s an d charg es I tal i an Gabbanel l i with infr i ngi ng Am er i can Gabbanel l i ’ s U.S

. r egi ste re d tra dem ar ks. T h er e w as a ch an g e o fv e n u e t o th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti n C h i c a g o , a nd seve ra l m onths l ate r I tal i an Gabbanelli, tho ugh unrepre

sen ted by c o u n s e l, w rote a l etter to th e d istri ct cou rt co nt en di ngtha t th e arbi tr at i o n c l au se i n the a g r ee m en t settling th e ori g in al I talian l iti gation ba rred the cou rt from exerc isin g j urisd iction over A m erican G abb an ell i’ s sui t. The dist ri ct j ud ge rej ecte d the co ntenti on a fterI tal i an Gab ba ne l l i fi na l l y r et aine d c o uns el( se e be l o w). Hav in g fi l ed sui t i tse l f( the I tal i an sui t t o w hi ch w e r efer re d ear l i er ) r atherthan proce ed i n ar b itr ati on, I tal i an Gabba n elli can har dlybe hear d to com pla i n abo ut i ts opponent’ s hav i ng done the sa m e thi ng. True, I tal i an G abb an el l i c o ul d no t i nv o k e arbi tr at i o n b efo r e th e th i rd arbitrator w as ap p ointed

. Bu t ift h e reason the th ird arbi tr ato r w as not appoint ed was that A m er i can Gabbanel l i ’ s a rbi tr ato r ha d r efused to co oper ate with I tal i an Gabbanel l i ’ s a rbi tr ato r i n pick i ng the thi rd arbi tr ato r, I ta l i anGabb an el li c oul d ha ve s o ug htr el i efi n the I tal i an co u rt fo r bre ach o fthe arbi tr ati on cl ause. I t has soughtsuch r el i ef, i n sti l l ano thersui t, but w e hav e no t been tol d w hat the gr ound ofthatsui t i s, o r i ts outco m e. The i ss ue o fthe e ff ec t o fthe a rbi tratio n c l au se o n the p re se n t la w su it is in an y e v e n t n otj u ris d ict ion al. A perso n w ho having ag re ed to arbi tr ate i nstea d bri ngs a4 N o. 08

- 1569 sui t has br oke n hi s co ntract, and the bre ach ca n be p lea d ed as a defe nse t o hi s s uit
. But eve n i fthe defe nse i s s ound, i t no m or e depri ves the c ourto fj uri sdic ti on t h a n a d e f e n s e b a s e d o n a n y o th e r c o n t r a c t u a l f o r u mse lec tio n cla u se w ou ld

. Sc he rk v. Al b e r t o- Cul ve rCo. , 41 7 U
. S. 5 0 6 , 518-20 (1974); Bal t i m or e& O hi o Chi cago Te r m i nal R. R. v . Wi s c o n s i n Ce n t r a l Lt d. , 15 4 F

. 3d 404, 40 8- 09 ( 7th C ir. 19 98 ); cf. C IG NA Heal thC a re o f St. Lo uis, Inc. v. Ka iser, 29 4 F .3d 84 9, 85 2-5 3 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); L l oy d v. HO VENSA, L L C, 36 9 F .3d 26 3, 27 2 (3 d C ir. 20 04 ); R eynolds Ja m a ica M ines, Ltd . v. La S o ciete Na va le C a enn a ise, 239 F. 2d 689, 69 4 ( 4th Ci r. 19 56)

. Thi s i s a pp ar ent fro m the f act that parti es t o a n a rb i t r a t i o n a g r e e men tc a n a l wa y s wa i v e the a gr eem ent a nd deci de to duke o ut thei r dis pu te i n cour t, G rum haus v. Co m er ica Se curi ti es, Inc. , 2 2 3 F
. 3 d 6 4 8 , 6 5 0

- 51 ( 7th Ci r. 200 0); C abine treeof Wis consin, Inc. v. Kraftm aid C abine try, Inc. , 5 0 F .3d 38 8, 38 9-9 1 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ); H oxw orth v. Bli nde r, Rob i ns on & Co. , 980 F.2d 9 1 2 , 925-27 (3d Cir. 1992 )

— w h ic h i n effect is w ha t hap p en ed i n th is case. So no t o nl y is th er e no j ur i sdi ct i o na l o bs ta cl e; the r e i s no contr actual( orf orthatm att erany othe r) ob sta cl e. I tal i an Gabbanel l i w aive d i ts ri ght t o i nsi st on a rbi tr ati on by br i ng i ngs ui t upo n a “ fur th erc o nt r o ve r sy ” be twe enthe parti es i n vi ol ati on o fthe arbi trat ion c l ause i n i ts set tl em en t a gr ee m en t w ith A m er ica n G ab b an elli. The l ett erchal l engi ng the d istri ct c ourt ’ s j uri sdic ti on w as sen t, as w e said, i n July 2002

. I n O ctob e r t h e cou rt st ay ed fur th erpr o ce eding s p en di ngthe o ut co m e o fthe I tal i an sui t that I tal i an Gabban elli had fi l ed ear l i erthat y ea r . I n May 20 05 , wi ththe I ta l i anc o urt n o t y etha ving rend er ed a dec i si o n, the di st r i ctj udg e be ca m e i m pat i en tN o. 08

- 1569 5 and l i fted the stay. A m er i can G abbanel l i p ro m ptl y s er ved Ita lian G ab b an elli w ith r eq u es ts for a d m iss ion, ess en tia lly ask i ng i t t o adm i t l iab i l i ty on a l l the pla i nti ff’ s t ra demar kc l a i ms. T he de f e nd a nth a d 3 0 da y s t o r e s po nd

. F e d. R. Ci v. Pro

. Rul e 3 6( a) ( 2) , ( 3) , ( 4)

. I n Oc tobe r 2 00 5, months l a t e r, wi tho uth avi ngr e s po nd e d t o the r e qu e s t s fo r a dm i ss i o n, I ta l i anGabb an el li fina l l y hi r ed a l aw fi r m a nd the fi rm ente re d an appeara nce i n the case . A m er i can G abbanel l i m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent. A fterdel ays wh i l e the par ti es conte ste d the (nonexis tent) j uri sdic ti onali ssue, I tal i an Ga b banel l i fi l ed i ts opposi ti on to the m oti on f orsum m ary j ud gm ent in J une 200 7. Butha ving mi ss ed th e dea dl i ne f o r r es po ndi ngt o the r eque stf o r a dm i ss i o ns i t was de emed t o ha ve made th e re q u es te d ad m iss i on s. Fe d . R. C iv. P . 36(a )(3) ; Fab r i ko Acq ui s i tio n C o rp. v. Pr okos , 536 F.3d 605 , 607 (7th C ir. 20 08 ); H a dley v. U nited Sta tes , 45 F

. 3d 1 345, 13 47-48 (9th Cir. 1995 )

. S o w hen the defe nd ant m ove d to be per m i tte d to w i thdr aw the adm i ssi ons and substi tute affi davi ts co nt r adi ct i ngthe m , the j udg e denie d the mot i o n a nd the g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent fol l owed swiftl y. I tal i an Gabbanel l i had no e xcuse f ori gn or in g i ts oppone nt’ s r e qu e s tf o r a dmi s s i o ns l o ng, l o ngp a s tthe de a dl i ne . Tho ug h a smal l co m pan y, i t ha s l awy er s i n I ta l y who c o u ld h a v e pu t it in touc h w ith an A m erican law firm w h en it w as su ed ba c k in 20 02 . A n d a law firm d id fina lly m ak e an appeara nce f ori t in Octobe r 2005

— y e twa i t ed al m o stt wo y ea r s afte r tha t be f o r e m o ving to re sc i nd the adm i ssi ons. The excuse that the a rbi tr ati on cl ause re quir ed th e re q u es t fo r ad m iss ion s in an A m er ica n law su it t o b e in6 N o. 08

- 1569 I ta l i an i s f r i vo l o us ; the de f en dan t’ s i ni ti all et te r, o bj ec ting to the s uit, was i n Engli sh. The di str i ct j ud ge w as not re q u ire d to res c in d t h e ad m iss ion s, U ni t e d S t at e s v. 22 04 Barb ar a L ane, 96 0 F
. 2d 126, 129- 30 ( 11th Cir

. 1992) , and , with th e admi ss i o ns th us a par t o f th e ev i den ti ar y r ec o rd the gr ant o fsum m ar y j u d gm ent in f avo r ofthe pla i nti ffwas i nevi tabl e. Bu t what abo ut the re cent Ita li an j ud gm ent in I tal i an Gab b a n e l l i ’ s f a v o r ? T h e c o mpa n y h a d t r i e d , b e f o r e th e a p p e a l w a s a r g u e d , t o s u b mi t i t d i r e c t l y t o u s , b u twe dir ecte d that i t instea d be s ubm i tte d to th e d ist ric t j ud ge, w ith a re q u es t t h a t h e m a k e i t a p ar t o f th e re c or d , as in U nited Sta tes v. R a m irez , 421 F.3d 159 , 167 (2d Cir. 2005). A n A m er i can co urt can t ake j ud i ci alnot i ce o fa f or ei gn j u d gm en t, H ilto n v . Gu y o t, 159 U

. S. 113, 205-06 (1895 ); M i ke ’s Tr ai n H ou s e, In c . v . L i on e l, L
. L
. C. , 472 F. 3d 398, 41 1- 12 (6t h C ir. 20 06 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gar l and, 99 1 F

. 2d 328, 33 2- 34 (6t h C ir. 1 99 3), b u t in m os t c as es (n otall

— se e, e.g ., C rocket t v . H ulick, 5 42 F
. 3d 11 83 , 1 18 8- 89 n. 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 008); R uv a lca ba v. C ha nd ler, 4 16 F.3d 555, 56 3 n. 2 ( 7th Cir. 2005); Di c k e rs o n v . A l a b a ma , 667 F.2d 136 4, 13 6 7 -68 ( 11th Cir. 19 82 ) ) the sens ibl e pr o ce dur e i s fi r stt o l o dge i t wi ththe tr i alco urt, as i n the R a m irez , Tr a i n H o use, a nd Garl and c as es, and that i s the usualprac ti ce. S ee al so En n i s v. Sm it h , 55 U .S. 40 0, 43 0-3 1 (1 85 2); Ll oyd v. Am e r i can E xp o rt Lines, Inc. , 5 80 F
. 2d 11 79 , 1 18 8- 90 ( 3d Ci r . 1 97 8)

. The signi fi cance ofa f or ei gn j ud gm ent forpending l i ti gati on depends obvi ousl y o n i ts m ean in g, w hi ch w i l l r equir e an accura te tr ansl ati on i f, as i n thi s case, th e jud gm en t was re nde r ed bya c o ur t i n a no n- Eng l i sh

- spe ak i ng c o u n t ry. A nd becau se th e U nited States is not a signatoryN o. 08

- 1569 7
to any t re aty gov er ni ng re cogni ti on of f or ei gn j ud gm ents, A l ess andro Barzaghi, “Recogni ti on and Enf or cem en t of U ni ted S tat es J ud gm ents i n I tal y, ” 1 8 N .Y
. I nt’l L . Rev
. 61 , 65 (20 05 ), th e s ign ifica n c e o f t h e fo re ign j u d gm en t w ill d ep en d on a va rie ty o fot h er co n sid er at ion s a s w ell, havi ng to do with the re l i abi l i ty of th e f or ei gn pro ceedi ng f ordeter m i ni ng t h e parti es’ r i ghts. S ee R estatem e nt( Thir d) of

Fo r e ign Rel at io ns La w § 482 ( 1987 )

. S om e o f thos e co nsi derat i ons, such a s a dequ acy ofnot i c e, are a l so best t reate d as m att er s o ff act because thei r accura te det er m i na ti o n c anb en efi t from co m pl i an ce wi ththe ru les of ev id en c e. S e e F e d . R. C iv. P . 44.1 ; Tw ohy v. Fi rs tNat i onal Bank, 758 F.2d 118 5, 1192 -94 (7th C ir. 1985). Altho ug h I ta l i an Gabb an el l i di d a s we di r ec te d a nd ask ed the dist ri ct j ud ge to add the I tal i an j ud gm ent t o th e r ec o r d, he r efus ed. Hi s g r o und was tha t th e co m pan y was t r y i ngt o g ethim to fi nd f ac ts whi l e th e case w as on appeal and j uri sdic ti on ove r the case h ad ther ef or e shi fted to the cour t o fappeal s. W e co uld have been cl e a r e r, b uto uri nt e nt i o n wa s t o o r de r a l i mi ted re m and to giv e the par ti es an o pp or tuni ty to supp l em en t th e record w ith th e j ud gm en t (and p ertinen t in terpr et i ve mate r i al s) , whi chmighta ssi stus i n de ci di ngthe a p p e a l, a s i n S eet ra n sp o rtWik in gTra d er S ch if fa rhtsges el ls chaft M B H& Co
. v. Navim pex Centrala N ava la , 98 9 F
. 2d 572, 583 (2d Cir. 1993). N o matt er . Be ca us e th e I ta l i anj udg m en t po st dates the A m er i c a n o ne , i t c a nn o t b e pl e a de d a s r e s j ud i c a t a , o r, so f aras we can se e, do a ny thi ng el se to advance I tal i an Gabbanel l i ’ s ca use. I t i s m or e l i ke ly that the Am er i can8 N o. 08

- 1569 j ud gm ent, atl eas t o nce the d efe nd ant has exhauste d i ts appe l l at e r emedi es ( ane ss en ti al co ndi ti o n, as we ar e ab o ut to see ) , co uld be ple aded as r es j ud i cata i n the I tal i an l i ti gat i on, as sum i ng tha t the It alian l i ti gat i on has not yetco ncl ud ed

— th at appe l l at e r emedi es r emai n un ex ha usted

. A l th o ug h the pa r ti es ha ve n’ t bo th er ed to t el l us an y th i ngabo utthe I ta l i ando ct r i ne o fr es j udi ca ta, o ur own r ese ar ch r eve al s that the I tal i an doctr i ne ( on wh i ch se e A rt icle 29 09 of th e Ita lian C iv i l C od e; E n ric o Z at to n i, “S om e C om p ar at ive R efle c tio n s o n Issu e P r e c lu sio n in Ci v i l Ca s e s : Co l l a t e r a l Es t o pp e l a nd G iudic a to Sull ‘Eccezione’, ” 4 1-4 4 (L .L .M . th es is, H ar va rd L aw Sc h oo l, A p r. 19 92 ); an d B ar za gh i, sup ra , 69

- 70, 85 -88 , 95) , unl i ke th e A m erican, does not acc ord re s j u d icata eff ect to a j udg m en t, whethe r do m es ti c ( th atis, I ta l i an ) o r f o r ei g n, u n til ap p ella te rem ed ies h a v e b ee n ex h au st ed

. Spi e rv. Cal za t u r i f i c i o Tecni c a, S
. p. A. W L 2 00 65 1, a t * 1- 2 ( S

. D. N
. Y. D ec . 3, 199 0); B ar za gh i, sup ra , a t 85 ; A ndr ea Bono m i, “ The I tal i an S tatu te on Pr i vate I nter nati onalLaw , ” 2 7 Int’ l J

. Legal Inf or m at i on 247, 266-67 (1999 ). I t i s t rue that A m er i can cou rt s apply the Am er i can d octrine of r e s ju d icata even to a f oreign j ud gm en t of a nati on l i ke I tal y that would n ot tr eatan Am er i can j ud gm en t t h e s am e w ay . Res t at e m e nt, sup ra , § 4 8 1 , c om m e ntd; Res t at e m e nt( Se co nd) of Con f l i c to f L aws § 98 (1971); R ichard W

. H ulb er t, “S om e Thoughts o n J ud gm en ts, Reci proci ty, and the S eem i ng Par adox ofI nter na tio nal Com m er ci al A rbi tr ati on, ” 2 9 U
. Pa. J
. Int ’ l L. 6 41 , 6 42

- 44 ( 20 08 )

. And so the f ac t th atthe I tal i anj udg m en t i s no t fi na l i n the sense o fappel l ate r em edi es havi ng be en exh au ste d i s no tN o. 08

- 1569 9 i m port ant. But w hat is i m po r ta nti s th ati t was r en dered afterthe j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
. T h e Ita lian ju d gm en t in sh or t is a re d h er rin g in th is appeal

. I tal i an Gabbanel l i ’ s chal l enge to l i abi l i ty f ai l s. Buti t ha s a l eg i ti m at e g r i ev an ce c o ncerni ngthe dam age s that the di str i ct j ud ge aw ar ded

— $151 , 200 i n l ost pr o fi ts pl us s ta tu to r y da m ag es o f$ 50 0 peri nfr i ng in g ac co r di o n. The l at te r awar d i s th e f o cus o fcont ent i o n. T h e L an h am A c t a u th or ize s s ta tu to ry d a m ag es on ly in case s in w hich th e viol ation of th e A ct takes t h e f orm ofusi ng a “c ou n ter f ei t” m ar k, § 1117 ( c)

— “a s pur i o us m ar k whi ch i s i den ti ca l wi th, o r su bs ta nt i al ly indi st i ngui shabl e fro m , a re gi ste re d m ar k, ” § 11 16( d)( 1) ( B)( i i ) ; se e al so §§ 1117, 11 27

— as d isti nct f r o m c as es i n whi chthe m ar ki s pl ac ed o n the de f en dan t’ s pr oductwi ththe tr adem ar k o w ner’ s co nsent but the pro du ct i s then dis tr ibut e d th r o u g h a n u n a u th o r i z e d c h a n n e l

. L o u i s P

. P e tr i ch , “P r el i m i na r y I nj unc ti o ns and Te m po r ar y Re st r aini ng Orders i n C opyr i ght a nd Tra dem ar k Infr i ngem ent Case s: The Tradem ar k C ounter f ei ti ng Act, ” 3 26 PLI/Pat 499, 57 0- 71 (19 91 ). F o r e x am p le, a p ro d u c t lic en se d to be so ld on ly in E urop e bu t sold i n the U nited States un d er the li cen sor’s tr ade m ar kwoul d b e a “g r eymar k et ” g o o d r athe r tha n a go od so ld b y m ea n s of a “c ou n te rfe it” m ar k. Id. Bu t I tal i an Gab b a ne l l i pl aced the Gabbanel l i m ar k o n acco r di o nsma de by a com p an y tha t w as no t au th orized to m a n u fa ctu re ac co r di o ns f o r s al e i n the Uni te d S ta tes unde r the G abb an ell i na m e; th is m ad e its use of the na m e cou nt erf e i t i n g. Id a h o Po t a t o C o mmi s s i o n v . G & T Te r mi n al P acka ging, Inc. , 425 F.3d 708 , 722 (9th C ir. 2005).10 N o. 08

- 1569 H ow ev er , sta tu to ry d am ag es m ay be a w a rd ed on ly in case s i n w hi ch co m pensato rydam age s a re notawarded for th e s am e v i ola tio n . 15 U .S.C . §§ 1 11 7(c ), (d ); D erek Andre w, Inc . v. Poof

Appare l Corp. , 528 F. 3d 696, 69 9 ( 9th C ir. 20 08 ); Tw in Peaks Pr o d u ct ions, Inc. v. Pu bli cations Int’l, Lt d. , 99 6 F .2d 1 36 6, 1380

- 82 ( 2d Cir

. 19 93)

. I t i s t rue that ifthere are sep arate violations, t h e fact tha t the y are ch arged i n th e sam e c a s e d oes not prec lud e an aw ard o fc o m pen sa to r y da m ages f o r s o m e o fthe v i o l at i o ns and sta tu tory dam age s f oro ther s a s t o w hi ch co m pensator y dam age s ca n’tbe asce rt ained orar e t oo sl i ght t o w ar r an t th e ex pen se o f det er m i ni ng but i n whi chde terre n c e w ou ld b e se rv ed b y a m on ey ju d gm en t. C f. N i nt e ndo of Am er ica, Inc. v. D ragon P acifi c Int’l, 40 F. 3d 1007, 10 10- 11 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 )

. Bu t thi s i s no t s uc h a c a s e . Bo th the l ost p r o fi t s , wh i c h a r e c o mpe n s a t o r y d a ma g e s , a n d th e s ta tu
tor y dam ages per tai n to the sam e a ccor dio ns that I tal i an Gabbanel l i so l d i n vi ol ati on o fA m er i can Gabbanel l i ’ s t ra dem ar k r i ghts. A fur th erpr o bl em wi ththe da m age s awar d i s th e amoun t o fs ta tu to r y da m ages th atc anb e awar ded i n the case o fa counter f ei t t ra dem ar k: “no t l ess than $500 o r m or e than $10 0, 000 p er co unterfei t m ar k perty pe of goo ds orse rv i ces sol d, off er ed f orsa l e, o r dist rib uted, as the c o ur tc o ns i de r s j us t
. ” 1 5 U. S

. C. § 1 1 1 7 ( c )

. P e r “ ty pe ofgo ods”

— not per ind ivi d ua l item bearing th e cou nt erfeit m ar k. 5 J. T h om as M c C ar th y, M cCar t hy on Trad e m arks and U nf ai rCom pe t i t i on § 30: 95 (4th ed

. 2009). The da m ag es a war d m us t th er efore b e va ca te d. The j udg m en t i s affi r m ed ex ce pt wi th r es pec t to th at aw ardN o. 08

- 1569 11 and a l so the aw ar d o f att or neys’ f ees , w hi c h th e d i str i ct cour t wil l have to r edeter m i ne atthe concl usi on o fthe proc e e di ng s o n r e man d.

A FF I R MED I N P ART, R EV ER S ED I N P ART, AN D R EMA NDE D WI T H I NS T RUCT I ONS
.

7- 30- 09