IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Ala.: Competing laser aesthetic companies receive split decision in trademark dispute, medical director found not involved, (Mar 4, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Failure to disclose damages computations during discovery precluded monetary remedies, but the record did not establish that injunctive relief was legally unavailable.

A federal district court in Alabama has granted in part and denied in part a motion for partial summary judgment in a trademark infringement dispute between competing laser aesthetics businesses. The court ruled that the plaintiff, a Bay Shore, New York–based laser aesthetics provider, could not pursue damages or an accounting of profits because it failed to disclose any computation of those remedies during discovery. However, the court declined to dismiss the request for injunctive relief against the defendant, a Homewood, Alabama laser aesthetics business, finding that the record did not establish that such relief was legally barred. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the Alabama business’s medical director, concluding that the evidence showed he had no involvement in selecting, creating, or using the allegedly infringing marks and therefore could not be held liable for the alleged infringement (Perfect Body Image LLC v. Perfect Body Laser and Wellness, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00705-ACA (N.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2026)).

Background. Perfect Body Image, LLC, doing business as Perfect Body Laser and Aesthetics, operates a laser aesthetics business in Bay Shore, New York. The company has operated for nearly two decades and advertises its services nationally. It sued Perfect Body Laser and Wellness, LLC, which runs a laser skin services clinic from a single location in Homewood, Alabama. The defendants also included the clinic’s chief executive officer and its medical director.

The plaintiff owns the word mark “Perfect Body Laser and Aesthetics,” which it began using in 2008 and registered in 2014. It also owns a registered graphic logo trademark associated with the same brand, also registered in 2014. The marks are used in connection with laser skin treatment and aesthetic services. According to the complaint, the Alabama clinic used the name “Perfect Body Laser & Wellness” and a similar graphic logo after its founding in February 2021.

The dispute arose after the New York company learned that the Alabama clinic was providing laser skin services under the name “Perfect Body Laser & Wellness.” The plaintiff filed suit alleging trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the remedies sought in the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages, an accounting of profits, or injunctive relief. Separately, the medical director moved for summary judgment on the grounds that he could not be personally liable for any alleged infringement.

Injunctive relief. The court first addressed the defendants’ request for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. The defendants argued that the doctrine articulated in Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959), barred injunctive relief because the parties operated in geographically distinct markets and the plaintiff had no plans to expand into Alabama.

The court rejected that interpretation. It explained that Dawn Donut does not create a categorical rule barring injunctions where parties operate in different geographic markets. Instead, the doctrine reflects the basic Lanham Act requirement that a plaintiff must first establish infringement by demonstrating a likelihood of confusion.

Citing Citibank, N.A. v. Citibanc Group, Inc., 724 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir. 1984), the court emphasized that injunctive relief is appropriate only if infringement is established. Because the defendants had moved only on the availability of remedies rather than on the underlying issue of liability, the court declined to rule that injunctive relief was unavailable at this stage. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the request for injunctive relief.

Damages and accounting of profits. The court reached a different conclusion regarding monetary relief. The plaintiff sought damages and an accounting of the defendants’ profits under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). However, the defendants argued that the plaintiff had never disclosed any calculation of damages during discovery.

The court agreed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires a party to provide “a computation of each category of damages claimed.” If a party fails to disclose that information, Rule 37(c)(1) bars the party from using the evidence unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.

Here, discovery closed in January 2025, and the plaintiff conceded that it never disclosed any damages computation. The court held that the failure was neither justified nor harmless. The plaintiff argued that it expected settlement negotiations to resolve the dispute, but the court noted that the scheduling order required supplementation of disclosures before the close of discovery and that the plaintiff never sought an extension.

Relying on Circuitronix, LLC v. Kinwong Electronics (Hong Kong) Co., 993 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2021), the court concluded that the nondisclosure prevented defendants from evaluating potential damages theories and was therefore prejudicial. Because the plaintiff failed to provide any damages or profit calculations, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on those remedies.

Liability of the medical director. The court also granted the medical director’s motion for summary judgment. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, a corporate officer may be personally liable for trademark infringement only if he actively participates in or causes the infringing conduct. The court cited Edmondson v. Velvet Lifestyles, LLC, 43 F.4th 1153 (11th Cir. 2022), which held that liability requires proof that the individual was a “moving force” behind the infringement.

The undisputed evidence showed that the medical director served solely as the clinic’s medical director, overseeing procedures that required physician supervision. He had no involvement in branding, advertising, marketing, or selection of the allegedly infringing marks. The court therefore concluded that no reasonable jury could find him personally liable.

The plaintiff also argued that the medical director was liable for contributory trademark infringement. The court rejected that theory and noted that contributory liability typically applies to parties who supply infringing products or provide instrumentalities, such as marketplaces or physical premises, that facilitate infringement. The medical director’s provision of physician services did not fall within that framework.

Accordingly, the court entered judgment in favor of the medical director and limited the remaining case to the plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief against the remaining defendants.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-00705-ACA.

Judge: Axon, A.

Attorneys: Raymond P. Fitzpatrick (Attorneys at Law) for Perfect Body Image, LLC. Michael S. Denniston (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP) for Perfect Body Laser and Wellness, LLC.

Companies: Perfect Body Image, LLC; Perfect Body Laser and Wellness, LLC

Cases: Trademark AlabamaNews