LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER S.A, Plaintiff-Appellee, - v - LY USA, INC.; COCO USA INC.; CHONG LAM; MARCO LEATHER GOODS, LTD.; and JOYCE CHAN, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Cross Defendants-Appellants., 472 Fed. Appx. 19

Summary

Defendants argued that the district court's observations that differences existed between the accused merchandise and the trademarked merchandise could not be reconciled with a finding of infringement. The court of appeals held that the district court properly applied the Polaroid factors in finding a likelihood of consumer confusion within the meaning of 15 U.S.C.S. § 1114(1)(a); exact copying was not required in order to find confusing similarity. The likelihood of post-sale confusion also supported the infringement determination. Defendants' argument that a cooperating witness was biased was insufficient to defeat summary judgment on the counterfeiting claim under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1127; the district court's ruling was based on the absence of any testimony contradicting the cooperating witness, along with other evidence. Statutory damages were appropriately awarded under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1117(c). The district court's findings regarding defendants' distinct and willful uses of counterfeit ...