FRANCISCO ARGUELLES AND LEOPOLDO FERNANDEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANCISCO SABIO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision granting a permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement. The court found that a decree pro confesso admitted the allegations of infringement, justifying the injunction and subsequent damages.
The court held that the decree pro confesso admitted the allegations of infringement, which warranted the injunction. The proven profits were a proper incident to the injunction, and the joint decree against the defendants was appropriate.
“The sufficient allegatiohs of the bill of complaint showing the infringement are admitted by the decree pro confesso.”
Establishes that the default judgment admitted the core allegations of the lawsuit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSabio sued Arguelles and Fernandez for trademark infringement, seeking an injunction and damages. A decree pro confesso was entered against the defend…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Accounting For Profits cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Sabio brought suit to enjoin the infringement of a trade mark and for an accounting and damages for the infringement. The transcript brought here does not show it, but it is conceded that a decree pro confesso was entered. Testimony was taken as to the protfis of the defendants made in the infringement, and a final decree awarded a permanent injunction and damages for the profits shown by the testimony.
It is contended that no infringement is proven; that as the proofs did not authorize an injunction there was no power to award damages; that the proofs do not warrant the damages allowed; and that the decree being-joint is erroneous.
The sufficient allegatiohs of the bill of complaint showing the infringement are admitted by the decree pro confesso. The confessed allegations of the bill warranted the injunction, and the proven profits allowed as damages are a proper incident to the injunction. The appellants are shown to be joint tort feasors in the infringement, and the joint decree against them is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hockbr, J. J., concur.