A federal judge has granted the United States Olympic Committee’s (USOC) request for a permanent injunction that will prevent a camp organizer from leveraging the name recognition of the USOC and Olympic movement in general for financial gain.
The court, however, stopped short of requiring the defendant to prepare a detailed report illustrating its compliance or destroying infringing materials. On the question of attorney fees, the court required that the USOC “submit sufficient evidence supporting its request for costs and fees.”
The USOC initiated the lawsuit after it became aware that the Tobyhanna Camp Corporation was producing a children’s summer camp called Camp Olympik. The USOC alleged that the defendant’s use of words and symbols was “in violation of the USOC’s common law and statutory rights,” primarily under the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.
Among the evidence that raised the ire of the plaintiff was its programming, which emphasized the Olympic sports, and use of a logo consisting of the word “Olympic” and the five-ring Olympic symbol.
The USOC sued on January 22, 2010. The defendant failed to appear, causing the plaintiff to move for a default judgment. The court also considered the plaintiff’s other requests for injunctive relief, damages, fees, and costs.
After granting the motion for default judgment, the court turned to the USOC’s request for a permanent injunction, enjoining the camp from using the word Olympic or the five-ring symbol in promoting its camp.
“A permanent injunction may be granted ‘where the moving party has demonstrated that: (1) the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate; (2) the moving party has actually succeeded on the merits of its claim; and (3) the ‘balance of equities’ favors granting injunctive relief,’” wrote the court, citing Chao v. Rothermel, 327 F.3d 223, 228 (3d Cir. 2003).
“Here, all three factors tip in favor of granting a permanent injunction. First, the Court is properly exercising jurisdiction. Second, the USOC has succeeded on the merits of its claim: the allegations in the complaint, presumed to be true, are more than adequate to establish a violation of the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.”
Turning to the plaintiff’s request for a written report, the court admitted that it is within its “sound discretion” to make such a requirement. But it opted not to, writing that “although the camp has failed to respond to the USOC’s written correspondence in a satisfactory manner, or even to answer the complaint, the court disagrees that an order requiring the camp to report on its compliance is necessary given the permanent injunction.”
Next, it considered the USOC’s request that the camp “be ordered to destroy all advertisements, promotional and administrative materials (or similar) that use the word ‘Olympic’ or its simulations or depict the Olympic symbol or its simulations.
“When the USOC’s rights have been infringed, 15 U.S.C. § 1118 provides that ‘the court may order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements in the possession of the defendant, bearing the … word, term, name, symbol, device, combination thereof, designation, description, or representation that is the subject of the violation … shall be delivered up and destroyed.’ The decision whether to order the camp to ‘deliver up and destroy’ these materials bearing the offending words and symbols is committed to the court’s discretion. See 15 U.S.C. § 1118.
“Given that the camp will be enjoined from all future infringement, which would include the use, sale, or distribution of offending materials, an order for destruction does not appear necessary to protect the USOC’s interests. See Kelley Blue Book v. Car-Smarts, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 278, 293 (C.D. Cal. 1992).”
On the question of attorney fees, the court wrote that “the USOC has failed to meet the exacting standards required to support its claim for attorney fees. There is no evidence from which the court can determine that either the number of hours spent, or the hourly rates claimed, are reasonable. The USOC submitted only one declaration, which summarized, in cursory fashion, the names, titles, rates, and hours spent for all personnel on this matter. The declarant is an attorney at the firm representing the USOC. Although this declarant may be able to speak to the amount of time he personally expended on the litigation, as well as his own hourly rate, he fails to explain how he has personal knowledge of the time the other attorneys spent. Even as relates to his own time, he offers no evidence that his rate is the prevailing market rate for an attorney of his experience, skill, and reputation, or that the number of hours expended on each task was reasonable. Accordingly, the Court shall hold in abeyance the motion for default judgment as to its request for attorney fees and costs.”
United States Olympic Committee v. Tobyhanna Camp Corporation d/b/a Camp Olympik, et al.; M.D. Pa.; CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-162, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117650; 11/4/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Blake J. Lawit, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin PC, San Francisco, CA; Barry L. Cohen, Sorin Royer Cooper, LLC, King of Prussia, PA.
