PROMOTORA DE SERVICIOS, S.A. F/K/A FONSECA LACAYO AND COMPANIA LIMITADA, APPELLANT,
v.
LOS RANCHOS RESTAURANT, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Promotora de Servicios, a Nicaraguan corporation, appealed the dismissal of its trademark infringement and unfair competition complaint against Los Ranchos Restaurant. The Florida appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for reinstatement of the complaint, applying principles from the federal Lanham Act and state trademark law.
The court held that the dismissal was improper and reversed the order, reinstating Promotora's complaint. The court recognized that under trademark law, a plaintiff may lose the right to recover damages for periods prior to suit due to laches, but may still be entitled to injunctive relief and damages for the period after filing suit.
[1] State trademark law should be construed with due consideration and great weight given to interpretations of comparable provisions of the federal Lanham Act by federal cou…
[2] In trademark infringement actions, a plaintiff may lose the right to recover damages accrued prior to suit due to laches, but may still be entitled to injunctive relief a…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is the intent of the Legislature that, in construing this chapter, due consideration and great weight be given to the interpretations of the federal courts relating to comparable provisions of the Trademark Act of 1946 [the Lanham Act]”
Establishes that Florida courts must follow federal Lanham Act interpretations in state trademark cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePromotora de Servicios, S.A., a Nicaraguan corporation, filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Los Ranchos Restaurant, Inc., a Fl…
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 Trademark Infringement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Promotora de Servicios, S.A., a Nicaraguan corporation, appeals the dismissal with prejudice of its complaint against Los Ranchos Restaurant, Inc., et al., a Florida corporation. Promotora brought its complaint for damages and injunctive relief under Section 32 of the Lanham Act of 1946, and under the laws of the State of Florida.
We reverse the dismissal order, and remand with instructions to reinstate Promotora’s complaint. See § 495.181, Fla. Stat. (Supp.l998)(“It is the intent of the Legislature that, in construing this chapter, due consideration and great weight be given to the interpretations of the federal courts relating to comparable provisions of the Trademark Act of 1946 [the Lanham Act].... ”); James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., 572 F. 2d 574, 578 (7th Cir.1978)(by reason of laches, plaintiff in trademark infringement action may lose right to recover dam ages during period prior to suit, but upon a showing of infringement the plaintiff may still be entitled to injunctive relief and to damages and profits for the period subsequent to the filing of the suit); Great Southern Bank v.
First Southern Bank, 625 So. 2d 463 (Fla.l993)(analysis of state case based on federal eases decided under comparable provisions of the federal Lan-ham Act); 3 Callmann, Unfair Competition Trademarks and Monopolies §§ 19.19 (territorial expansion), 19.20 (actual goodwill zones: selling, advertising, and reputation zones); 4 Callmann, Unfair Competition Trademarks and Monopolies § 22.30, at 194 (the Lanham Act contains no statute of limitations period for trademark infringement); id. § 22.21 (laches — in general); id. § 87.5, at 157.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- James Burrough Ltd. & Kobrand Corp. v. Sign OF the Beefeater, Inc., 572 F.2d 574 (7th Cir. 1978)
- Great S. Bank v. First S. Bank, 625 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1993)