Drew Estate Holding Company LLC v. Fantasia Distribution, Inc.

Case: 12-15083 Date Filed: 11/08/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15083
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-21900-CMA
DREW ESTATE HOLDING COMPANY LLC,
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant -Appellee,
versus
FANTASIA DISTRIBUTION, INC.,
Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff
Counter Claimant - Counter Defendant –Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 8, 2013)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and SUHRHEINRICH, * Circuit Judges.
JORDAN, Circuit Judge:
*
Honorable Richard F. Suhrheinrich, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
Case: 12-15083 Date Filed: 11/08/2013 Page: 2 of 2
In this appeal Fantasia Distribution, Inc. challenges the district court’s award
of profits to Drew Estate Holding Company LLC, on its trademark infringement
claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). Among other
things, Fantasia argues that the district court erred in not holding an evidentiary
hearing on Drew Estate’s motion for an award of profits under 15 U.S.C. §
1117(a). After this appeal was filed, the district court issued an indicative ruling,
stating to us that it would hold an evidentiary hearing on profits if the matter were
remanded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1; Fed. R. App. P. 12.1. After having heard oral
argument, we believe the best course is to remand the case to the district court to
hold the requested evidentiary hearing and then enter a new judgment—whatever
that may be—based upon its findings.
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to
hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of profits and to enter an amended final
judgment based upon what transpires at the hearing. 1 This appeal is now closed.
Any party may, of course, file a timely appeal from the amended final judgment.
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
1
In light of our decision, Fantasia’s pending motion to take judicial notice is denied as moot.
2