ROAR, LLC v. ROAR Global Limited

Filing 48

DEFAULT JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:. Defendant ROAR GLOBAL LIMITED is liable for Plaintiffs claims of trademark infringement.. Plaintiff is hereby awarded a permanent injunction.Plaintiff is also hereby awarded attorney fees of $71,272.00. Related to: APPLICATION for Default Judgment against Defendant ROAR Global Limited 46 . ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (lc)

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5

United States District Court
Central District of California

6
7
8
9
10

ROAR, LLC, a California limited liability
company

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 2:15-CV-05865-ODW(AFM)

v.
ROAR GLOBAL LIMITED, a United

JUDGMENT

Kingdom entity of unknown form, d/b/a
ROAR GLOBAL; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive,

17

Defendants.

18
19

On August 4, 2015, Plaintiff ROAR, LLC, filed this action against Defendant

20

ROAR GLOBAL LIMITED for trademark infringement. (ECF No. 1.) On October

21

13, 2016 the Clerk of Court entered a default against Defendant. (ECF No. 44.) On

22

December 5, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment

23

against Defendant. (ECF No. 47.)

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1
2
3
4
5
6

In accordance with that Order, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED as follows:
1.

Defendant ROAR GLOBAL LIMITED is liable for Plaintiff’s claims of

trademark infringement;
2.

Plaintiff is hereby awarded a permanent injunction.

That permanent

injunction reads as follows:

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

“Defendants, and each of its owners, officer, directors, servants,
employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, and all persons in active
concert of participation with them” from:
(A) using, promoting, displaying, or otherwise marketing goods or
services under, the trademark ROAR or any confusingly similar variation
thereof, including, without limitation, ROAR GLOBAL (collectively, the
“Trademark” or “Mark”), in connection with talent management services,
brand promotion and management, the production and promotion of
feature films, television content, musical recordings, and live events, and
any services or products related thereto;
(B) using, promoting, or displaying the Trademark on the Internet,
including on any website or social media application (including, by way
of example only, Twitter and Facebook); and

18
19
20

(C) interfering with in any way, either directly or indirectly, Plaintiff’s
use, registration, marketing, expansion, enforcement, and exploitation of
the Trademark.

21
22
23
24

3.

Plaintiff is also hereby awarded $71,262 in attorneys’ fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 5, 2016

25
26
27
28

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2