Beyond Nominal: Recouping Damages from Evasive Trademark Infringers

For brand owners, trademark enforcement is critical to protect goodwill and prevent market confusion. Yet the prospect of litigation can feel futile precisely when infringement is most blatant: the defendant ignores demand letters, refuses to participate in the proceeding, withholds financial information, and leaves the plaintiff to prove loss through an evidentiary fog of the defendant’s own making. Without reliable evidence of sales, customers, profits, or duration of use, even a strong infringement case risks collapsing into a modest “nominal” damages award.

A recent Federal Court decision, Martinizing International, LLC v C&D Makridis Holdings Ltd, provides some practical relief. The Court awarded $185,473.86 in damages against a non-participating respondent that used the MARTINIZING mark for dry-cleaning services without authorization. Importantly, the Court did not allow the respondent’s silence to force the applicant into “nominal” recovery and instead accepted a damages