If you asked most commercial landlords what keeps them up at night, they probably wouldn’t say that they worry about their tenants committing trademark infringement. Granted, trademark infringement is not likely to be an issue for most tenants. But when it does happen, the landlord might be on the hook. In fact, in 2017, we wrote about that happening.
Now it’s happened again. Just last week, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of eyewear brand Luxottica Group and its Oakley, Inc. subsidiary against the owners of a discount mall. Defendant Yes Assets owned the International Discount Mall and leased it to defendant Airport Mini Mall, LLC (“AMM”), which in turn subleased to 120 or so different vendors. Yes Assets provided maintenance and operations services to AMM and the vendors.
While AMM ran the Mall, it was raided three times by law enforcement due to vendors selling counterfeit goods. One of the raids lasted over 14 hours and required a tractor-trailer to haul away the seized goods. The principals of Yes Assets and AMM were made aware of the raids at the time. Luxottica twice sent letters to Yes Assets and AMM notifying them that their vendors were not allowed to sell Luxottica’s eyewear or counterfeit versions either. The second letter identified specific vendors selling counterfeit eyewear. After Luxottica filed the lawsuit, Yes Assets’ property manager and counsel met with law enforcement about the issue. The defendants did not, however, do anything to stop the sale of counterfeit goods and even renewed the leases of several of the vendors who had been arrested during one of the raids.
Luxottica sued the defendants for “contributory trademark infringement.” For that claim, the defendant must have “reason to know” of the infringement. A jury found for Luxottica and awarded $100,000 for each infringed trademark, totaling $1.9 million in damages. The appeals court affirmed the verdict.
There is some nuance to the ruling, but suffice it to say that landlords should be aware that if a tenant or subtenant is infringement a trademark, the landlord could wind up liable for it.
- Partner
Matt Chait is the Managing Partner of the West Palm Beach office of Shutts & Bowen LLP, where he is a member of the Business Litigation Practice Group. His statewide practice focuses on commercial real estate and land use litigation ...
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Breaking News: FinCEN Postpones Beneficial Ownership Reporting Deadlines for Companies Impacted by Recent Major Storms
- What You Need to Know About the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America TIFIA Loan
- Breaking News: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Implementation of the FTC’s New Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements
- September 4th is Almost Here: How Employers Can Prepare for the Upcoming Effective Date of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- Raising the Roof: The U.S. Department of Labor Announces Rule Raising Salary Thresholds for Overtime Exemptions
- New Guidelines Anticipated Following HHS’s Health Cybersecurity Concept Paper
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
- Florida Appellate Court Provides Further Guidance Regarding New Summary Judgment Rule
Popular Categories
- Employment and Labor
- Construction
- Business of Real Estate
- Construction Litigation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Competition
- Real Estate Law
- Cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property
- Public Private Partnership
- Appeals
- Construction
- Litigation
- Contracts
- Development/Land Use
- Trusts and Estates
- Data Security
- Business
- Supreme Court
- Public Finance
- Privacy
- Technology
- IP Litigation
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Patents
- Business
- Regulatory Compliance
- Florida Government Contracts
- Foreclosures
- Trademark
- Health Care
- Contracting
- Financial Institutions
- Compliance
- Estate planning
- International Dispute Resolution
- Property Tax
- Florida Public Contracts
- Government Contracting
- Government Contracts
- Conveyances
- Government
- Lease
- Appellate Blog
- Patent Office
- Insurance
- Wealth planning
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Bid Protests
- Public Contracts
- Cyber fraud
- Infringement
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- GAO
- International Arbitration and Litigation
- Bid Protest
- Arbitration
- International
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Copyright
- Promissory Notes
- Title
- Small Business
- Florida Procurement
- Public procurement
- Consumer Privacy
- PTAB
- General Liability
- Technology
- International Arbitration
- Liens
- Liens and encumbrances
- Creditor's Rights
- Bidding
- Attorneys' Fees
- Inter Partes Review
- Power Generation
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Contracting
- Government Vendor
- State Government Contracts
- Venue
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Florida Administrative Law
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Florida Public Procurement
- Russia-Related Arbitration
- Mortgages
- Eviction
- Record on Appeal
- FINRA
- Rehearing
- Loan guaranties
- Patents - Assignor Estoppel
- Dispute Resolution
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Liens
- Maritime
- Damages
- Briefing
- Request for Proposal
- Patents - Obviousness
- Commercial Brokerage
- Department of Labor
- Trade Secrets
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Certiorari
- Design Professionals
- email hacking
- Forum Selection
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Banking
- Designer Liability
- Finality
- Fintech
- Lis Pendens
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Evidence
- Evidence
- Expert
- Expert Science
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Marketing/Advertising
- Preservation
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Mootness
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Veteran Owned Business
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016