Lagos Wins Trademark Lawsuit

A federal judge in Philadelphia ruled that jewelry designer and manufacturer Michael Dawkins, Inc. infringed upon the trademark owned by jewelry designer and manufacturer Lagos, Inc.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald J. Buckwalter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, through a consent order and permanent injunction, said that Philadelphia-based Lagos owns the trademark for the “Caviar” name in jewelry designs and that MDI must stop using the name in promoting and selling its own jewelry line—specifically rings, pins, bracelets, earrings, necklaces, and watches. The consent order was issued July 9.

“The suit is a signal by Lagos that it is willing and able to enforce its trademarks, especially that of its signature brand,” said Lagos’ attorneys Lewis F. Gould Jr. and Maxim A. Voltchenko of Duane Morris L.L.P., Philadelphia.

Lagos filed a civil suit in March against New York City-based MDI and Internet retailer Twiggs, charging that the jewelry manufacturer was promoting a line of jewelry using the Caviar name, and selling the jewelry through shoptwigs.com.

The court noted in its ruling that MDI had already stopped using the Caviar name in its advertising and distribution of jewelry and will not use the name in the future.

“The Caviar trademark … is good, valid, incontestable, and enforceable by law and the Plaintiff (Lagos) is the sole proprietor of all right, title, and interest in and to the CAVIAR trademark,” the court ruled.

Complicating matters somewhat is that MDI filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Aug.2. Lagos said MDI is still liable for any infringement on its trademark after the filing. The court agreed.

“By entering into this Stipulated Consent Order and Permanent Injunction, defendant MDI agrees and acknowledges that the release and injunction provisions of its proposed Plan of Reorganization filed with the Bankruptcy Court, and any and all amendments …, shall for post-petition violations have no impact upon the terms and conditions of this Consent Order and the obligations imposed upon defendant MDI hereunder,” the court ruled.