By Patrick Danner, Staff writer | San Antonio Express-News (SAEN), 2025-03-13 17:24:28
由生成式人工智能翻译，译文内容可能不准确或不完整，以原文为准。
一款融合了 圣安东尼奥马刺队 (San Antonio Spurs)和 弗雷德炸鱼店 (Fred’s Fish Fry)标志的混搭球衣的创作者，被判承担商标侵权责任。
本周， 美国地方法院法官泽维尔·罗德里格斯 (U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez)永久禁止球衣设计师 阿德里安·加尔万 (Adrian Galvan)和维克多·加尔万使用弗雷德炸鱼店公司的商标或“任何容易引起混淆的类似变体”来制造或销售任何商品或服务。
加尔万兄弟（两人是朋友但没有亲戚关系）以及另一名被告 迈克尔·巴埃斯 ，也被勒令向这家历史悠久的圣安东尼奥海鲜连锁店支付8230美元，以支付其律师费。巴埃斯被指控在网上销售这些商品。
在三人未对诉讼提出答辩后，罗德里格斯做出了缺席判决。
弗雷德炸鱼店的律师 布兰登·库克 (Brandon Cook)表示，他对判决结果感到满意。
“这场诉讼一开始的目标之一就是向人们表明，未经授权使用弗雷德炸鱼店的标志或商标是不允许的，”库克说，“我认为我们已经清楚地传达了这一信息。”
马刺队从未就该球衣采取法律行动。
“从未收到传票”
加尔万兄弟表示，他们是周四从《圣安东尼奥快报》的记者那里得知罗德里格斯法官的裁决的。
“我不知道有针对我的判决，” 阿德里安·加尔万说。“我以为我必须先收到传票，才能出庭。我从未收到传票。”
维克多·加尔万称针对他的判决“荒谬”。
“我和那件事一点关系都没有。一点也没有，”他说。“我从未收到任何文件。我是从《快报》那里听说的。”
大约一年前，在多次尝试通知加尔万兄弟诉讼未果后，法官批准了弗雷德炸鱼店提出的跳过亲自向加尔万兄弟送达传票的动议。法官认为他们可能已经意识到弗雷德炸鱼店试图向他们送达传票。
“我们根据法院批准替代送达的命令进行了送达，” 库克说，他使用的术语是指传票可以留在某处房产，而不是亲自送达给被告。
维克多·加尔万曾表示，他没有参与该球衣的设计。但法官在他的命令的一个脚注中写道：“鉴于原告声称阿德里安·加尔万‘和/或’维克多·加尔万设计了该球衣，法院将此指控视为适用于阿德里安和维克多。”
阿德里安·加尔万已经承认设计了该球衣，但表示他没有从中获利。
“我只是创建了一个梗图，让人们开心一笑，”他在诉讼提起后说。
未经授权
弗雷德炸鱼店最初在2023年末起诉了十几名被告，原因是他们所谓的“未经授权的球衣设计”。这款被称为“炸鱼球衣”的球衣，将该餐厅的名称、跃动的鱼形标志、红蓝鱼图案和棋盘格设计与当地篮球队的名称和牛仔靴马刺队标志结合在一起。
弗雷德炸鱼店拥有超过六十年的历史，并且至少从1967年就开始使用这些标志，它指控被告在各种网站上销售带有其商标的球衣和其他非法服装。
7月，该餐厅撤销了对包括多个网站在内的九名被告的诉讼。只剩下加尔万兄弟、巴埃斯和Rancho181 LLC作为被告。Rancho 181由维克多·加尔万所有。
法官罗德里格斯裁定，弗雷德炸鱼店未能提供任何证据表明Rancho 181使用了弗雷德炸鱼店的商标。他给了这家炸鱼连锁店两周的时间来重新陈述其针对Rancho 181的诉讼请求，但库克表示尚未就如何进行做出决定。法官仍需做出最终判决。
弗雷德炸鱼店指控被告“通过混淆消费者，让他们相信被告的商品与原告有关联或得到原告的批准，从而有意地利用原告在弗雷德炸鱼店品牌中建立的商誉。”
在其诉讼中，弗雷德炸鱼店希望被告支付实际损失并交出所有侵权标志的利润，以及“增加的”经济损失。
弗雷德炸鱼店在法官的命令中没有得到任何这些。库克说，由于被告没有回应诉讼，无法获得任何财务信息，因此无法计算经济损失。
在诉讼之后，弗雷德炸鱼店发布了一款庆祝其成立60周年的限量版球衣。
This “unauthorized” jersey featuring a mash-up of the logos of the San Antonio Spurs and Fred’s Fish Fry led to a federal trademark lawsuit against the jersey’s creators. This week, a federal judge granted Fred’s motion for a default judgment against the creators and two individuals.
The Regular Fish Order, the one the clerks call “hot fish,” includes three pieces of fried fish, fries and bread at the San Antonio seafood chain Fred’s Fish Fry.
Fred’s Fish Fry owner Alfred Castellano developed the seafood chain’s signature logo in the early 1970s. The San Antonio chain has stuck with the same branding since.
点击查看原文：Fred's Fish Fry-Spurs jersey case ends badly for creators
Fred’s Fish Fry-Spurs jersey case ends badly for creators
The creators of a mash-up jersey featuring the logos of the San Antonio Spurs and Fred’s Fish Fry have been found liable for trademark infringement.
U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez this week permanently enjoined jersey designers Adrian Galvan and Victor Galvan from using the Fred’s Fish Fry Inc. trademarks or “any confusingly similar variation” in the manufacture or sale of any merchandise or services.
The Galvans, who are friends but not related, and another defendant, Michael Baez, also were ordered to pay the storied San Antonio seafood chain $8,230 to cover its attorneys’ fees. Baez was accused of selling the merchandise online.
Rodriguez entered the default judgment against the trio after they failed to file an answer to the lawsuit.
Brandon Cook, a lawyer for Fred’s, said it was pleased.
“One of the goals at the outset of this lawsuit was to show people that it’s not going to be OK to use Fred’s logos or Fred’s trademarks without authorization,” Cook said. “I think we have communicated that message loud and clear.”
The Spurs never took legal action over the jersey.
‘Never got served’
The Galvans said they learned about Rodriguez’s order Thursday from a San Antonio Express-News reporter.
“I didn’t know there was a judgment on me,” Adrian Galvan said. “I thought I had to get served before I would even have to appear in court. I never got served.”
Victor Galvan called the judgment against him “ridiculous.”
“I had nothing to do with that thing at all. Zero,” he said. “And I never got served any papers. I heard about it from (the Express-News).”
Almost a year ago, the judge granted Fred’s motion to bypass personally serving the Galvans with a summons after multiple failed attempts to inform them of the suit. The judge concluded they probably were aware of Fred’s attempts to serve them.
“We served it according to the court’s order granting substitute service,” Cook said, using the term that means the summons can be left at a property rather than personally serving a defendant.
Victor Galvan has said he had no involvement in the jersey’s design. But the judge wrote in a footnote in his order: “Given that Plaintiff asserted Adrian Galvan ‘and/or’ Victor Galvan designed the jersey, the Court treats this allegation to apply to both Adrian and Victor.”
Adrian Galvan has acknowledged designing the jersey but said he didn’t make any money.
“I just created a meme for people to get laughs,” he said after the suit’s filing.
Unauthorized
Fred’s originally sued more than a dozen defendants in late 2023 over what it called an “unauthorized jersey design.” Dubbed the “Fish Fry Jersey,” it featured the restaurant’s name, leaping fish logo, red and blue fish pattern and checkerboard design combined with the hometown basketball team’s name and cowboy boot Spurs logo.
Fred’s, which has been around for more than six decades and has been using the marks since at least 1967, accused the defendants of selling the jersey and other illicit apparel bearing its trademarks on various websites.
In July, the restaurant dismissed nine defendants from the case, including multiple websites. That left only the Galvans, Baez and Rancho181 LLC as defendants. Rancho 181 is owned by Victor Galvan.
Rodriguez, the judge, ruled that Fred’s failed to allege any facts that point to Rancho 181’s use of Fred’s trademarks. He gave the fish fry chain two weeks to replead its claims against Rancho 181 but Cook said no decision has been made on how it will proceed. The judge still has to enter a final judgment.
Fred’s accused the defendants of “intentionally trading off the goodwill Plaintiff has developed in the FRED’S FISH FRY brand by confusing consumers into believing Defendants’ merchandise is affiliated with, or approved by, Plaintiff.”
In its suit, Fred’s wanted the defendants to pay actual damages and turn over all of their profits from the infringing mark, as well as “enhanced” financial damages.
Fred’s didn’t get any of that in the judge’s order. Cook said it couldn’t calculate the financial damages because it was unable to get access to any financial information given the defendants did not respond to the suit.
In the aftermath of the lawsuit, Fred’s released a limited-edition jersey celebrating its 60th anniversary.
By Patrick Danner, Staff writer, via San Antonio Express-News