Tee Turtle, LLC v. Abmask et al
Filing
55
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 51 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction, 51 . Judgment shall be entered consistent herewith in the amount of $40,000.00 against each of the Non-Complying Defaulting Defendants and $25,000.00 against each of the Complying Defaulting Defendants.IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
TEE TURTLE, LLC
v.
Plaintiff,
ABMASK, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 2:21-CV-03572-CBM-(Ex)
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION [51]
16
17
The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and
18
Permanent Injunction. (Dkt. No. 51 (the “Motion”).) Having considered the
19
Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, the
20
Declaration of J. Michael Keyes, and the pleadings, files, and records of this
21
matter, the Court GRANTS the Motion and finds as follows:
22
1.
The Verified Complaint, filed on April 27, 2021, asserts four causes
23
of action: (1) Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.; (2) Unfair
24
Competition, Lanham Act § 43, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) State Statutory Unfair
25
Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; and (4) Unfair Competition
26
under California Common Law. (Dkt. No. 1.)
27
28
2.
On April 29, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application
for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Order to Show Cause Why a
1
1
Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (“OSC”) upon finding Plaintiff
2
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the
3
absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in its favor, and an
4
injunction is in the public interest. (See Dkt. No. 15 (citing Winter v. Nat. Res.
5
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).)
6
3.
On April 29, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application
7
for an Order Granting Leave for Alternative Service by Electronic Means. (Dkt.
8
No. 17.)
9
4.
Plaintiff filed a proof of service reflecting electronic service of the
10
Verified Complaint and Summons on all Defendants other than Defendant
11
Happylifes on May 3, 2021, and electronic service on Defendant Happylifes on
12
May 5, 2021, in the manner approved by the Court in its Order Granting Leave for
13
Alternative Service by Electronic Means. (Dkt. No. 32; see also Dkt. No. 31-1.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
5.
The Court issued a preliminary injunction against Defendants on May
6, 2021. (Dkt. No. 23.)
6.
The Clerk entered default as to Complaint against all Defendants on
June 22, 2021. (Dkt. Nos. 36-44.)
7.
Defendants were served with notice of the Motion on October 5,
2021 (Keyes Decl. ¶ 28).
8.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Defendants’ opposition to the Motion
21
was due on October 19, 2021 based on the November 9, 2021 noticed hearing
22
date, but no opposition was filed by Defendants and Defendants did not appear at
23
the hearing.
24
9.
Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendants are not infants or incompetent
25
persons or in military services or otherwise exempted under the Soldier’s and
26
Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 (Keyes Decl. ¶ 29).
27
28
10.
The Court finds the statutory damages requested by Plaintiff pursuant
to the Copyright Act in the amount of $40,000.00 against each of the six
2
1
defendants (Allanhu, Bestdeals, Besthot2020, Earlybirdno1 Co. Ltd., Hot Wind,
2
and Promotionspace) who have not complied with the Court’s preliminary
3
injunction order as of September 23, 2021 (hereinafter, the “Non-Complying
4
Defaulting Defendants”) and $25,000.00 against each of the remaining defendants
5
(Abmask, Ast523, Babyeveryday, Babyfashionwedding, Beautydesign,
6
Besthair2021, Bestoffers, Beststore2021, Cheapgoodfuns Co., Ltd., Chicmissday,
7
Cinderelladress, Creative 2, Cwmsports, DHGate Boutiques Store, Dresssave,
8
Fidget Toys, Googsports, Hangzhou Boyuan Enterprise Management Co., Ltd.,
9
Happylifes, Homehome9, Jack6666, Jspet, Kidswonder, Kn95 Facemask,
10
Letsports, Misshowdress, Ningbo Jeeweex Enterprise, One-stopos, Shanhai2008
11
(HK) International Trading Limited, Shantou Hoya Network Technology Co.,
12
Ltd., Shenzhen Dream Co., Ltd., Springwedding Factory, Triple_s_sneakers,
13
Tongxiang Indus Hin Yue Zhendong Sweater Factory, Wholesalefactory,
14
Wristwatches(HK) International Trading Co., Ltd., Wusy_store, and Zi527) who
15
have complied with the Court’s preliminary injunction order (hereinafter,
16
“Complying Defaulting Defendants”), are within the permissible range of
17
statutory damages permitted under the Copyright Act. See STJ Enter. Inc. v. H
18
Grp. Intl, Inc., 2020 WL 4286875, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2020); Star Fabrics,
19
Inc. v. Wet Seal, Inc., 2015 WL 12746712, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015).
20
21
22
11.
The Court finds the factors in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-
72 (9th Cir. 1986), weigh in favor of granting the Motion for Default Judgment.
12.
The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of
23
irreparable harm pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) because Plaintiff states a claim
24
for trade dress infringement and has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
25
merits of its trade dress infringement claim. Defendants have not appeared and
26
therefore present no evidence rebutting the presumption of irreparable harm.
27
Moreover, Plaintiff submits evidence that it has been harmed by the loss of
28
goodwill, damage to its reputation, and the inability to execute deals with large
3
1
retailers based on Defendants selling the infringing products, it is harmed each
2
time Defendants sell the infringing products
3
13.
Plaintiff offers evidence demonstrating the Non-Complying
4
Defaulting Defendants have continued to offer infringing products for sale in
5
violation of the Court’s preliminary injunction order. Therefore, the Court finds
6
monetary damages would not remedy the harm to Plaintiff from Defendants’
7
continued infringement.
8
14.
There is no evidence Defendants will be harmed by an injunction,
9
and any hardship as a result of enjoining Defendants from infringing Plaintiff’s
10
copyrights and trade dress rights is irrelevant in determining whether to issue an
11
injunction. See Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 125 F.3d 824, 829 (9th
12
Cir. 1997); Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Ozwear Connection Pty Ltd., 2014 WL
13
4679001, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2014). Plaintiff, however, submits evidence
14
it will be harmed by the loss of goodwill, damage to its reputation, and the
15
inability to execute deals with large retailers if Defendants are not enjoined from
16
selling the infringing products.
17
15.
The public interest is served by upholding rights under the Copyright
18
Act and Lanham Act. See Internet Specialties W., Inc. v. Milon-DiGiorgio
19
Enters., Inc., 559 F.3d 985, 993 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2009); State of Idaho Potato
20
Comm’n v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc., 425 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 2005);
21
Charter Sch. Cap., Inc. v. Charter Asset Mgmt. Fund, LP, 2014 WL 12560776, at
22
*11 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2014).
23
16.
Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff demonstrates the irreparable
24
injury, inadequate remedy available at law, balance of hardships, and public
25
interest factors weigh in favor of a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v.
26
MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).
27
28
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
and Permanent Injunction. Judgment shall be entered consistent herewith in the
4
1
amount of $40,000.00 against each of the Non-Complying Defaulting Defendants
2
and $25,000.00 against each of the Complying Defaulting Defendants.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 17th day of November, 2021 at 11:26 a.m.
6
7
8
9
10
CONSUELO B. MARSHALL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CC: FISCAL
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?