Case Name: FARMAMEDICA, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ana Eloisa Alfaron DE MARON, d.b.a. Combisa Laboratorios, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-20
Citations: 461 F. App'x 918
Docket Number: No. 11-13578
Parties: FARMAMEDICA, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ana Eloisa Alfaron DE MARON, d.b.a. Combisa Laboratorios, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before CARNES, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 461
Pages: 918–919

Head Matter:
FARMAMEDICA, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ana Eloisa Alfaron DE MARON, d.b.a. Combisa Laboratorios, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-13578
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 20, 2012.
Michelle L. Mejia, Gilbert Lee Sandler, Sandler Travis & Rosenberg, PA, Miami, FL, Kenneth N. Wolf, Sandler Travis & Rosenberg, PA, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stephen D. Milbrath, Robert Houpt Thornburg, Allen Dyer Doppelt Milbrath & Gilchrist, PA, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before CARNES, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellee Farmamedica, S.A. (Farmamedica), alleged that Defendant-Appellant Ana Eloisa Aliaron de Marón d/b/a Combisa Laboratorios (de Marón) infringed upon its trademark "Vital Fuerte" when she used the mark "Super Vital Forte." In 2007, de Maron's attorney made an offer of settlement. Farmamedi-ca accepted the offer. Final judgment was entered. A permanent injunction issued against de Marón from using the mark "Super Vital Forte."
In 2008, de Marón applied to register the mark "Supervitalforte." In 2009, Far-mamedica moved for contempt. In 2011, forty-two (42) months after judgment was entered against her, de Marón filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), and Farmamedica renewed its motion for contempt. The district court denied de Maron's motion for relief from judgment, and granted in part, Far-mamedica's renewed motion for contempt.
We have reviewed the record in this appeal, the briefs and the arguments of counsel. The July 14, 2011, order of the district court is thorough and well-reasoned. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
. De Marón claims now that she did not give her attorney authority to settle in 2007. The district court assumed that de Maron's former attorney lacked the authority to settle, therefore, de Maron's motion requesting an eviden-tiary hearing on this factual dispute, was denied as moot.