IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—M.D. Fla.: Owner of ‘Dracula’ and ‘Vampire’ trademarks for wine obtains partial summary judgment against Romanian Winery, (Oct 2, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Some affirmative defenses disposed of before trial; others must be decided by jury.

In a trademark dispute over the use of the "VAMPIRE" and "DRACULA" names for similar wine products summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. The trademark owner was granted summary judgment on Count I of the defendants’ counterclaims and on Count II to the extent that Count II is based on an allegation of fraud on the USPTO, and on the defendants’ third and fourth affirmative defenses. However, the trademark owner’s motion for summary judgment as to Count II of the defendants’ counterclaim to the extent the counterclaim is based on abandonment, and as to the defendants’ fifth affirmative defense, was denied (Vampire Family Brands, LLC v. Dracula’s Legacy, LLC, No. 8:23-cv-01014-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2025)).

Background. Vampire Family Brands, LLC (Vampire) alleged that it owned the trademarks “Dracula” with respect to wine and food, “Vampire” with respect to wine and restaurant and bar services, and other related marks. Vampire also alleged that it sells its Dracula and Vampire wines nationally and that they are available in retail stores, bars, and restaurants. TI Beverage Group – another entity owned by Michael Machat, Vampire’s counsel in this case opened the Vampire Lounge & Tasting Room in Beverly Hills, California, in 2011, selling Dracula and Vampire branded wines. Operation of the Vampire Lounge was later transferred to the Blueblood Trust, which was created by Machat and continued to operate the lounge until it closed in June 2018. Vampire later licensed the Vampire mark to a long-time Machat friend and associate, Marita Jager Crandle, who opened her “New Orleans Vampire Café” in New Orleans in 2021, selling items with Vampire’s brands.

Sometime after February 2020, Vampire learned that a Romanian winery known as Viile Budureasca Srl was selling bottles of wine branded as “Dracula’s Legacy” to an importer, Amavi Vinum, LLC. Amavi Vinum, in turn, sold the wine to a distributor, who then sold it to Dracula’s Legacy, LLC, which operates “Dracula’s Legacy” wine bars and bistro restaurants in St. Petersburg and Tampa, Florida. Vampire filed suit for trademark infringement against Dracula’s Legacy, Elena Ramona Neamtu and Vasile Relu Neamtu who managed the wine bars, Budureasca, and Amavi Vinum. Vampire dismissed Budureasca, and Amavi Vinum pursuant to settlement agreements.

Dracula’s Legacy, LLC, Elena Neamtu, and Vasile Neamtu (collectively, defendants) asserted numerous affirmative defenses as well as two counterclaims against Vampire that seek cancellation of Vampire’s registration for the trademarks. Count I seeks cancellation of the registration for Vampire’s Dracula mark (Registration No. 3,319,536) based on allegations of fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Count II seeks cancellation of the Vampire mark (Registration No. 3,978,444) based on fraud on the USPTO and abandonment. Vampire moved for summary judgment on both counterclaims, on the corresponding affirmative defenses, and on certain other affirmative defenses.

Fraud. The defendants argued that Machat was not personally using the Vampire mark in business; instead, it was being used by Machat’s company, TI Beverage, to operate the Vampire Lounge. Further, no Machat company, including TI Beverage, had a restaurant license from the state of California. TI Beverage, therefore, was not using the mark lawfully. However, Vampire argued that ownership rights in a mark may be acquired and maintained through use of the mark by a controlled licensee, such as, in this case, TI Beverage. Further, as to the lawfulness of TI Beverage’s use of the mark, Vampire submitted evidence that TI Beverage was permitted to sell wine in the Vampire Lounge under a wine grower’s license. The defendants provided no evidence that was not true or that Machat knew it was not true when making the statements to the USPTO.

Additionally, the defendants’ evidence did not support a finding that, when Machat made the challenged representation to the USPTO, he was aware of another person or entity selling wines or operating bars or restaurants under the Dracula or Vampire marks. Therefore, the district court concluded that the defendants presented no evidence, direct or circumstantial, sufficient to support a jury finding under the clear and convincing evidence standard that Machat made knowingly false representations and made them to deceive the USPTO into accepting the registrations. Therefore, they cannot succeed on their cancellation counterclaim and fraud defenses.

Abandonment of the vampire mark. The defendants contended that Machat closed the Vampire Lounge in 2017 or 2018, that at the time he had no intention of reopening it, and that the Vampire mark was not used again until Vampire entered a licensing agreement in 2022 with a Marita Jager Crandle, a friend of Machat, relating her New Orleans Vampire Café. Vampire argued that the mark was not abandoned and submitted evidence that the Vampire Lounge closed in the summer of 2018 because it needed more space than that provided by its then-expiring lease, and that Machat’s intent was to reopen in a larger space.

Then in late 2020, Machat agreed with a longtime acquaintance Crandle to license the Vampire mark to her for a café she proposed opening in New Orleans, a project in which Machat assisted and which opened in January 2021 as the New Orleans Vampire Café. Vampire asserted that the written license agreement in April 2022 merely “memorialized” a prior existing license. However, no documentary evidence was submitted regarding the opening of Crandle’s New Orleans Vampire Café. Additionally, the district court noted that at some point prior to June 2018, management of the Vampire Lounge was transferred to the BlueBlood Trust, of which Machat was the creator, but not the trustee. The record disclosed neither a written license nor any evidence as to Machat’s control over the quality of goods and services provided by the Vampire Lounge under the trust’s management. Therefore, the district court concluded that issues of fact remain, and the defendants’ abandonment contentions are better considered on a more complete record at trial.

Remaining affirmative defences. Vampire’s motion for summary judgment was denied as to the first, second, seventh, and ninth affirmative defences. The defendants’ first affirmative defense asserted that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The second affirmative defense asserted that the defendants have not infringed a valid enforceable trademark owned by Vampire. The eighth affirmative defense asserted that the defendants, use of the marks is protected by the doctrine of aesthetic functionality. Lastly, the defendants’ ninth affirmative defense asserted that their use of the marks is protected under the doctrine of fair use.

However, the district court concluded that Vampire was entitled to summary judgment on the defendants’ seventh affirmative defense that asserted that Vampire’s infringement claims were barred by the doctrine of first sale. The defendants point to settlements Vampire entered with Viile Budureasca and Amavi Vinum, formerly defendants in this case, and contended that these agreements retroactively authorized or legitimized those entities’ sales to the defendants of wine with allegedly infringing marks. But the settlement agreements simply resolved Vampire’s infringement claims against the two former defendants in return for a monetary payment and an agreement to cease selling wines with the allegedly infringing similar marks. The district court determined that they did not retroactively authorize the original sales by Budureasca and Amavi Vinum to bring the defendants’ sales within the first sale doctrine.

The Case is No. 8:23-cv-01014-TPB-TGW.

Judge: Barber, T.

Attorneys: Daniel Ben Ravicher (Zeisler PLLC) for Vampire Family Brands, LLC. Woodrow Heath Pollack (Shutts & Bowen, LLP) for Dracula's Legacy, LLC.

Companies: Vampire Family Brands, LLC; Dracula's Legacy, LLC

Cases: Trademark FloridaNews