'Enough is Enough': Laundry Tech Company Hit With $1M Judgment for Contempt, Legal Fees
The judge held the defendant in contempt for blatantly violating his order and making repeated "frivolous" arguments.
January 12, 2018 at 04:59 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge this week ordered a Naugatuck laundry technology company to pay more than $1 million in attorney fees and contempt sanctions to its former parent company in a trademark case.
U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill of the District of Connecticut wrote in his opinion that Voss Laundry Solutions, formerly called Lavatec Inc., blatantly ignored his 2014 preliminary injunction barring the company from infringing the trademark of Lavatec GmBh, Voss' former parent company. Voss not only continued to manufacture and sell parts under the Lavatec name, the judge said, but also pursued “frivolous” counterclaims in the suit, which warranted the sanctions.
“Enough is enough,” Underhill wrote in his Jan. 9 opinion. “I hereby hold Voss in contempt of court.”
A representative for Voss did not immediately reply to a request for comment. The company was represented by John C. Linderman of McCormick, Paulding & Huber.
David Slossberg, of Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff was co-lead counsel for Lavatec GmBh in the case, along with the firm of Klein Moynihan Turco.
Lavatec GmBh, a German company, filed its lawsuit in 2013. After a five-day bench trial, Underhill ruled in 2014 that the trademark for Lavatec belonged to Lavatec GmBh and barred the subsidiary from using the Lavatec name. But Voss repeatedly violated the order in various ways, such as using Lavatec as a domain name for emails and advertising under the Lavatec name in a trade show, Underhill wrote.
According to the opinion, Voss made various arguments to defend its actions, including rehashing the ownership arguments the judge already ruled on and arguing the judge's order was unclear. Underhill wrote in his opinion this week that he had “no doubt that Voss's conduct constitute[d] contempt of court.”
As a result, the judge ordered Voss to pay $5,000 as a coercive contempt sanction. In addition, the court made a finding that Voss' misconduct made the lawsuit an “exceptional case” under the Lanham Act, and therefore warranted payment of attorney fees.
Slossberg, who has practiced law for nearly 30 years, said he could not remember ever having a case where the grounds for a judge's ruling was the defendant's conduct.
“I've had my share of crazy cases, but this had its novelty,” Slossberg said.
Slossberg added that the judge's description of how to award the attorney fees and costs, which amounted to $959,315.85 and $41,602.90, respectively, was plainly laid out and could serve as a “roadmap” for attorneys going forward.
“I don't want to create the impression that [the judge] was starting from scratch or reinventing the wheel, but I do think it is not terribly common that you recover almost a million dollars worth of attorneys' fees in a trademark case,” Slossberg said.
While the ruling is likely the end of the case, there is a possibility Voss could appeal.
In the meantime, Slossberg is elated with the result.
“I'm really happy for the result for the client,” he said. “This is a company with a long and rich history of producing this quality laundry equipment and the name has really come to represent the quality of the company and its products. We're glad that that could be restored to them along with recouping some of the costs.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMcCarter & English Punitive Damages Question to Be Argued Before State High Court
Partners Reluctant to Merge Can Tank Firms' Chances at Growth, Survival
5 minute readWith the Rise of Generative AI, Legal Departments Lean on Law Firms as 'Business Partners' More Than Ever
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250