## Facts

- Coach owned trademarks used on handbags and related goods.
- Frederick Goodfellow operated a Memphis flea market that rented 75–100 vendor booths (about $15 per day) and storage containers.
- Although a manager handled daily operations, Goodfellow retained final authority over vendor approval and removal.
- Coach sent Goodfellow a letter warning of counterfeit Coach sales at the market and demanding that sales stop.
- The local district attorney’s office later warned Goodfellow that counterfeit Coach goods were still being sold and that he was in willful disregard of the law.
- Police conducted three raids over roughly a year, seizing more than 4,600 counterfeit Coach items from vendor booths and storage units rented through the market; the market was ultimately permanently closed.
- After repeated warnings and seizures, Goodfellow did not implement meaningful inspections or otherwise take adequate steps to stop vendors’ counterfeit sales.
- Coach sued Goodfellow and vendors under the Lanham Act; the district court granted summary judgment to Coach on Goodfellow’s contributory trademark infringement liability (after Goodfellow did not respond), a jury awarded $5,040,000 in damages, and the court awarded $186,666.61 in attorney’s fees and costs as an exceptional case.

## Issues

1. Whether the Lanham Act permits contributory trademark infringement liability for a flea market operator based on vendors’ counterfeit sales conducted on the operator’s premises.
2. Whether the circumstances supported an “exceptional case” finding under the Lanham Act warranting an award of attorney’s fees and costs.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment in full.
- The court held that contributory trademark infringement liability exists under the Lanham Act and can apply to a flea market operator who supplies space and related services to vendors he knows (or is willfully blind to knowing) are infringing.
- The court upheld summary judgment on liability because undisputed evidence showed Goodfellow’s knowledge and continued provision of booths and storage to infringing vendors.
- The court affirmed the $5,040,000 damages award and the $186,666.61 attorney’s fees and costs award, concluding the case was exceptional due to willful conduct and continued infringement after repeated warnings and raids.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory trademark infringement applies when a defendant intentionally induces infringement or continues supplying a product or service to a party it knows or has reason to know is infringing.
- The contributory liability standard is not limited to manufacturers and can reach intermediaries who provide the instrumentalities of infringement, including physical marketplace space and storage.
- Willful blindness to infringement may satisfy the knowledge requirement for contributory trademark infringement.
- A Lanham Act case may be deemed “exceptional,” supporting a fee award, where the defendant’s conduct is willful and persists despite clear notice and repeated enforcement actions.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that a flea market operator may be contributorily liable under the Lanham Act when, after notice of counterfeit sales, he continues providing booths and storage to infringing vendors without adequate remedial action, and it affirmed attorney’s fees as an exceptional case based on willful blindness and sustained infringement.


Coach, Inc. v. Goodfellow, 717 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 2013)