Reported / Citable
Background
Trieu, LLC, the registrant of several trademarks containing “Venetian” and “Venetian Nail Spa,” sued Venetian Nail Spa LLC, Venetian Nails & Hair Inc., Phuc C. Nguyen, and Thanh Mai Do for trademark infringement in April 2024. The defendants are located in Amarillo, Texas.
The parties executed a written settlement agreement in July 2024. Among other obligations, the defendants agreed to stop using marks identical or confusingly similar to Trieu’s marks, adopt a new business name, and file the documents required to implement that change. Trieu then voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit, and the court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. In August 2026, Trieu moved to enforce the settlement, alleging continued use of infringing marks and failure to complete the agreed name change. The defendants did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Trieu’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. It concluded that the agreement expressly required the defendants to cease using identical or confusingly similar marks and to adopt the new trade name, and that the defendants had continued using such marks, failed to adopt “Vernet Nail Spa,” failed to file the necessary name-change documents, and continued operating in violation of the agreement.
As specific performance, the court ordered the defendants to permanently cease using marks identical or confusingly similar to Trieu’s registered marks, adopt “Vernet Nail Spa” as the salons’ business trade name, file the documents necessary to effectuate the name change with the appropriate governmental authorities, and provide Trieu written proof of full compliance. The court also directed Trieu to seek attorneys’ fees through a separate motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).
Key Takeaways
- A federal court may enforce a settlement after dismissal when its dismissal order expressly retained jurisdiction to do so.
- The defendants’ unopposed noncompliance supported specific performance of their obligations to stop using confusingly similar marks and complete the agreed business-name change.
- Trieu must request attorneys’ fees by a separate Rule 54(d) motion.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical importance of expressly retaining enforcement jurisdiction in a dismissal order. That provision allowed Trieu to return to the same court and obtain specific performance rather than file a new action over the alleged settlement breach.
It also shows that settlement obligations involving trademark use and a business-name change can be enforced through concrete injunctive relief when the required acts are specific and readily enforceable.