In a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit joined the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Ninth Circuits in holding that trademark owners who seek the disgorgement of an infringer's profits in lieu of actual damages, such as lost sales or licensing, are not entitled to a jury trial because such a form of relief is equitable in nature.1 Hard Candy, a Florida-based cosmetics company, originally filed its complaint, Hard Candy LLC v. Anastasia Beverly Hills Inc., against its cosmetics competitor, Anastasia Beverly Hills in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and alleged claims for trademark infringement under § 32(a) of the Lanham Act; unfair competition under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); common law trademark infringement; and common law unfair competition.
展开▼
机译：在一项先例判决中，美国第十一巡回上诉法院与美国第六和第九巡回上诉法院一道，裁定商标所有人寻求侵权者的利润损失，以代替实际损失，例如销售损失或许可，因此无权获得陪审团审判，因为这种救济形式在本质上是公平的。1总部位于佛罗里达的化妆品公司Hard Candy最初针对其化妆品提出了Hard Hard LLC诉Anastasia Beverly Hills Inc.的申诉。竞争对手美国佛罗里达州南区地方法院的Anastasia Beverly Hills，根据《兰纳姆法》第32（a）条指控商标侵权；根据《美国联邦法典》第15篇《兰纳姆法》第43（a）条进行不正当竞争。第1125（a）条；普通法商标侵权；和普通法不正当竞争。
展开▼
