Otter Products LLC et al v. Ace Colors Fashion, Inc et al

Filing 33

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT ACE COLORS FASHION, INC. 30 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc) .Modified on 4/16/2014 (lc). Modified on 4/16/2014 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

OTTER PRODUCTS LLC; TREEFROG

12

DEVELOPMENTS, INC. d/b/a

13

LIFEPROOF,

Case No. 2:14-cv-00141-ODW(ASx)
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,

14

AGAINST DEFENDANT ACE

v.

15

COLORS FASHION, INC. [30]

16

ACE COLORS FASHION, INC.;

17

ELECTRONICOS; SHAYNA’S CELL

18

PHONE ACCESSORIES; VANESSA

19

ACCESSORIES; DOES 1–10, inclusive,

20

Defendants.

21

I.

INTRODUCTION

22

Plaintiffs Otter Products, LLC (“OtterBox”) and Treefrog Developments, Inc.

23

(“LifeProof”) discovered that Defendant Ace Colors Fashion was selling goods

24

bearing Plaintiffs’ registered trademarks without their authorization. Plaintiffs filed

25

suit.

26

otherwise respond. The Clerk of Court accordingly entered default, and Plaintiffs

27

moved for default judgment. After considering the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, the

28

Court GRANTS the Application for Default Judgment and awards OtterBox and

After being served with process, Ace Colors Fashion failed to answer or

1

LifeProof a total of $35,000.00 in statutory damages along with a permanent

2

injunction against Ace Colors Fashion.1
II.

3

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4

Founded in 1998, OtterBox is a Colorado limited-liability company with its

5

principal place of business in Colorado. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 14.) OtterBox is a leading

6

retailer of protective cases, peripherals, and accessories for electronic devices and

7

computers. (Id. ¶ 15.) The company makes protective carrying cases for a wide

8

variety of electronic products, including cell phones and tablet computers. (Id. ¶ 16.)

9

OtterBox has earned several local and national consumer awards and has been

10

featured in media reports about consumer electronics products. (Id. ¶¶ 18–19.)

11

OtterBox owns federally registered and common-law trademarks, including

12

those listed in Figure 1. (Id. ¶ 20.) It has spent significant resources developing its

13

products and marketing them in print and Internet advertising. (Id. ¶¶ 21–22.)
Figure 1

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

///

26

///

27

1

28

After carefully considering the papers filed with respect to this Motion, the Court deems the matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

2

1

Treefrog Developments, Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business as

2

LifeProof. (Id. ¶ 2.) LifeProof is a designer, manufacturer, distributor, and seller of

3

all-protective cases and related accessories for mobile devices. (Id. ¶ 23.) Its products

4

provide protection against water, dirt, snow, and shock. (Id. ¶¶ 23–24.) The company

5

has spent substantial time, money, and effort developing consumer recognition and

6

awareness of the LifeProof brand, including through national and international

7

advertising.

8

Registration No. 4,057,201 for “LIFEPROOF.” (Id. ¶ 26.)

(Id. ¶ 25.)

LifeProof is the exclusive owner federal trademark

9

On October 17, 2013, Plaintiffs’ investigator visited Defendant Ace Colors

10

Fashion at 1001 Maple Avenue, Suite 107, Los Angeles, California 90015. (Perez

11

Decl. ¶ 2.) The investigator inquired about LifeProof cases for an iPhone 5, and a

12

store associate retrieved five samples from the display wall. (Perez Decl. Ex. 1.) The

13

investigator also observed six OtterBox Defender Series cases for the iPhone 5 on

14

display next to the LifeProof cases. (Id.) He purchased one of each case for $35.00

15

apiece. (Id.; see also Ex. 2 (depicting photographs of the purchased cases).) Plaintiffs

16

inspected the products and determined that they were not authentic. (Compl. ¶ 13.)

17

On January 7, 2014, OtterBox and LifeProof filed suit against, among others,

18

Ace Colors Fashion alleging eight federal and state trademark-infringement related

19

claims. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs served Ace Colors Fashion on January 20, 2014.

20

(ECF No. 10.) Hearing no response from Defendant, the Clerk of Court entered

21

default on March 14, 2014, per Plaintiffs’ request. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiffs thereafter

22

moved for entry of default judgment. That Application is now before the Court for

23

decision.

24

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) authorizes a district court to grant default

26

judgment after the Clerk enters default under Rule 55(a). Local Rule 55-1 requires

27

that the movant submit a declaration establishing (1) when and against which party

28

default was entered; (2) identification of the pleading to which default was entered;

3

1

(3) whether the defaulting party is a minor, incompetent person, or active

2

servicemember; and (4) that the defaulting party was properly served with notice.

3

A district court has discretion whether to enter default judgment. Aldabe v.

4

Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Upon default, the defendant’s liability

5

generally is conclusively established, and the well-pleaded factual allegations in the

6

complaint are accepted as true. Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–

7

19 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560

8

(9th Cir. 1977)).

9

In exercising its discretion, a court must consider several factors, including

10

(1) the possibility of prejudice to plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive

11

claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake; (5) the

12

possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the defendant’s default

13

was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules

14

of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470,

15

1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986).
IV.

16

DISCUSSION

17

OtterBox and LifeProof move for entry of default judgment against Ace Colors

18

Fashion on their trademark-infringement claim. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have

19

established that Ace Colors Fashion willfully infringed Plaintiffs’ registered

20

trademarks, thus entitling them to $35,000.00 in statutory damages and a permanent

21

injunction.

22

A.

Notice

23

On January 20, 2014, Plaintiffs’ process server delivered a copy of the

24

summons and Complaint to Jian Maharti, the person in charge at Ace Colors Fashion.

25

(ECF No. 10.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs properly served Defendant

26

under Rule 4(e)(2)(C).

27

///

28

///

4

1

B.

Eitel factors
OtterBox and LifeProof only move for entry of default judgment against Ace

2
3

Colors Fashion on their federal trademark-infringement claim.

4

trademark-infringement claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant is using a

5

mark “confusing similar” to a valid, protectable trademark owned by the plaintiff.

6

Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir.

7

1999). In AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979), abrogated on

8

other grounds by Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir.

9

2003), the Ninth Circuit set forth eight factors a court should consider in determining

10

To establish a

whether two marks are confusingly similar.

11

But the Court need not wade through the Sleekcraft thicket, because “in cases

12

involving counterfeit marks, it is unnecessary to perform the step-by-step examination

13

. . . because counterfeit marks are inherently confusing.” Phillip Morris USA Inc. v.

14

Shalabi, 352 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (internal quotation marks

15

omitted); see also Brookfield Commc’ns, 174 F.3d at 1056 (noting that virtually

16

identical marks are inherently confusingly similar).

17

There is no question that the goods at issue here are “counterfeit” in the sense

18

that they masquerade as genuine OtterBox and LifeProof products but were not made

19

or authorized by Plaintiffs. This is not a case where a defendant has employed a mark

20

that is similar but not identical to the plaintiff’s registered mark; rather, Ace Color

21

Fashions has wholly appropriated Plaintiffs’ trademarks without permission, thereby

22

rendering them liable for trademark infringement.

23

C.

24
25

Remedies
Plaintiffs request $100,000.00 in statutory damages against Ace Colors Fashion

and a permanent injunction.

26

1.

Statutory damages

27

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), a court may award statutory damages between

28

$1,000 and $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold or

5

1

offered for sale in the case of trademark infringement. But if the court finds that the

2

infringement was “willful,” the court may award up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit

3

mark per type of goods or services sold or offered. Id. § 1117(c)(2). The Ninth

4

Circuit has held that on default, a district court must accept a plaintiff’s willful-

5

infringement allegations as true. Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d

6

696, 702 (9th Cir. 2008).

7

In determining what amount of statutory damages to award, the Ninth Circuit

8

has repeatedly expressed a deterrence policy, that is, the damages award should make

9

“deliberate acts of trade-mark infringement unprofitable.” Maier Brewing Co. v.

10

Fleischmann Distilling Corp., 390 F.2d 117, 123 (9th Cir. 1968); see also Lindy Pen

11

Co., Inc. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1406 (9th Cir. 1993); Playboy Enters., Inc.

12

v. Baccarat Clothing Co., Inc., 692 F.2d 1272, 1275 (9th Cir. 1982).

13

Plaintiffs argue that one cannot determine the profits Ace Colors Fashion

14

reaped or the losses Plaintiffs incurred as the result of the infringement, because Ace

15

Colors Fashion failed to appear and present its sales data. But Plaintiffs’ investigator

16

observed 11 counterfeit units for sale at the business.

17

Where there’s smoke there’s fire. While Plaintiffs’ investigator only observed

18

11 infringing units for sale, it is likely that Ace Colors Fashion has sold, is selling, and

19

will sell many more units that infringe upon Plaintiffs’ registered marks.

20

impossible for the Court to assign a statutory-damages award with precision. But that

21

is not what Congress has asked. Rather, the award is left up to the Court’s sound

22

discretion after considering all relevant factors—including the willfulness allegation

23

which the Court must accept as true at this stage.

It is

24

The Court finds that the $100,000 award Plaintiffs request is excessive in light

25

of the limited scope of circumstances presented to the Court. But the Court does find

26

that given the demonstrated strength of the OtterBox and LifeProof marks along with

27

the Ninth Circuit’s deterrence policy, the Court must award statutory damages that

28

will adequately discourage Ace Colors Fashion and other businesses like it from

6

1

future infringement. The Court accordingly awards Plaintiffs a total of $35,000.00 in

2

statutory damages for willful trademark infringement as authorized by 15 U.S.C.

3

§ 1117(c)(2).

4

2.

5

Plaintiffs also request that the Court issue a permanent injunction against Ace

6

Permanent injunction

Colors Fashion.

7

The Lanham Act empowers a court to grant injunctions “according to the

8

principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable” to

9

prevent further trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a); Philip Morris USA, Inc.

10

v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 502 (C.D. Cal. 2003); PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal.

11

Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1178 (C.D. Cal. 2002). For a court to issue a

12

permanent injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) actual success on the merits;

13

(2) a likelihood of irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted; (3) a balance of

14

hardships favoring Plaintiff; and (4) that an injunction will advance the public

15

interest.” Wecosign, Inc. v. IFG Holdings, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1072, 1084 (C.D.

16

Cal. 2012) (granting a permanent injunction in a trademark-infringement action).

17

The Court has already determined that OtterBox and LifeProof succeeded on

18

the merits of their infringement claim. Plaintiffs will also suffer irreparable harm if

19

the Court does not issue an injunction, as Ace Colors Fashion is likely to continue to

20

sell infringing goods and consequently benefit from the goodwill Plaintiffs have spent

21

substantial money establishing for their marks. Neither is there any indication that

22

Defendant will suffer any prejudice; it simply must stop selling infringing goods.

23

Finally, the public will benefit from the Court enjoining Ace Colors Fashion. As the

24

Ninth Circuit stated,

25

In addition to the harm caused the trademark owner, the consuming

26

public is equally injured by an inadequate judicial response to trademark

27

infringement. Many consumers are willing to pay substantial premiums

28

for particular items which bear famous trademarks based on their belief

7

1

that such items are of the same high quality as is traditionally associated

2

with the trademark owner. As a result of this trademark infringement the

3

consuming public is denied the benefit of their bargains and the

4

reputation and goodwill of the trademark owner is accordingly harmed.

5

Playboy Enters., 692 F.2d at 1275.

6

The Court has also reviewed the language of the proposed permanent injunction

7

submitted by Plaintiffs and finds it appropriately tailored to this case’s circumstances.

8

(See ECF No. 30-5.) The Court will therefore issue the proposed injunction along

9

with the default judgment.
V.

10

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS OtterBox and LifeProof’s

11
12

Application for Default Judgment against Defendant Ace Colors Fashion.

13

No. 30.) The Court thus awards Plaintiffs a total of $35,000.00 in statutory damages

14

and grants Plaintiffs a permanent injunction. A default judgment and injunction will

15

issue.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

April 15, 2014

19
20
21

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8

(ECF