Vuitton Malletier v. Morales, No. 06-1800 (1st Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 06-1800 LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. TITO MORALES d/b/a PARIS BAG COLLECTION, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Jay A. García-Gregory, U.S. District Judge] Before Howard, Circuit Judge, Baldock,* and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges. Reichard & Calaf, P.S.C., Federico Calaf-Legrand, and Vicente A. Sequeda-Torres on brief, for appellee. Julio E. Gil De Lamadrid for appellant. January 10, 2007 * Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. Per Curiam. This appeal derives from an action brought by appellee Louis Vuitton Malletier against a host of vendors in Puerto Rico, including appellant Tito Morales (d/b/a Paris Bags), alleging that the vendors were selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton merchandise. In due course, the district court entered judgment against Morales, enjoined him from violating appellee's trademark rights, and ordered that he pay $50,000 in damages. Morales appeals. Morales's arguments merit only a brief discussion. First, Morales challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that appellee introduced to support its claim. This argument fails to comprehend that the district court entered a default judgment against him. Thus, Morales was deemed to have conceded the truth of appellee's factual allegations, see In re Home Restaurants, Inc., 285 F.3d 111, 114 (1st Cir. 2002), which were adequate to establish liability. Second, Morales contends that appellee failed to establish actual damages. But this contention is also beside the point because the district court awarded appellee statutory damages. See 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). district court never acquired Lastly, Morales argues that the personal jurisdiction over him because appellee's amended complaint was never properly served upon him. served This argument ignores the fact that Morales was initially with a "John Doe" complaint and appeared to contest appellee's request for a preliminary injunction on the strength -2- thereof. Morales presents no coherent theory as to how the improper service of a later filing (which, other than specifically identifying prior "John Does," was identical to the original complaint) divested the district court of personal jurisdiction over him. And, in any event, Morales fails to question the district court's alternative conclusion that any challenge to personal jurisdiction was waived as untimely. See Fed R. Civ. P. 12(h). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See Loc. R. 27(c). Costs are awarded to appellee.1 1 In light of our conclusions, appellee's motion to file a supplemental brief is denied. -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.