Farmamedica, S.A. v. Ana Eloisa Alfaron De Maron, No. 11-13578 (11th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MARCH 20, 2012 JOHN LEY CLERK No. 11-13578 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cv-20944-AJ FARMAMEDICA, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANA ELOISA ALFARON DE MARON, d.b.a. Combisa Laboratorios, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (March 20, 2012) Before CARNES, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellee Farmamedica, S.A. (Farmamedica), alleged that Defendant-Appellant Ana Eloisa Alfaro de Maron d/b/a Combisa Laboratorios (de Maron) infringed upon its trademark Vital Fuerte when she used the mark Super Vital Forte. In 2007, de Maron s attorney made an offer of settlement.1 Farmamedica accepted the offer. Final judgment was entered. A permanent injunction issued against de Maron from using the mark Super Vital Forte. In 2008, de Maron applied to register the mark Supervitalforte. In 2009, Farmamedica moved for contempt. In 2011, forty-two (42) months after judgment was entered against her, de Maron filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), and Farmamedica renewed its motion for contempt. The district court denied de Maron s motion for relief from judgment, and granted in part, Farmamedica s renewed motion for contempt. We have reviewed the record in this appeal, the briefs and the arguments of counsel. The July 14, 2011, order of the district court is thorough and wellreasoned. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED. 1 De Maron claims now that she did not give her attorney authority to settle in 2007. The district court assumed that de Maron s former attorney lacked the authority to settle, therefore, de Maron s motion requesting an evidentiary hearing on this factual dispute, was denied as moot. 2

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.