99 Only Stores v. Variety 99 Cents Plus et al
Filing
20
ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/11/2011 adopting in part 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS on 14 Motion for Default Judgment. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
99¢ ONLY STORES,
a California corporation,
13
14
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Plaintiff,
11
12
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01343-LJO-SMS
v.
VARIETY 99 CENTS PLUS, a California
company; TOMY LE, an Individual; and
DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE,
15
16
(Doc. 17)
Defendants.
/
17
18
Plaintiff 99¢ Only Stores sought default judgment against defendants Tomy Le and Variety
19
99 Cents Plus. This matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder, pursuant to 28
20
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.
21
22
On June 8, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that plaintiff’s
23
motion be granted, that an injunction restraining defendants’ future use of the infringing mark be
24
issued, and that an accounting be ordered to determine defendants’ profits. The Magistrate Judge
25
recommended that this Court refrain from granting attorneys’ fees.
26
The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the
27
1
1
parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days.
2
On July 8, 2011, plaintiff filed its objections solely with regard to the Magistrate Judge’s
3
recommendation against a grant of attorneys’ fees (Doc. 19).
4
5
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
6
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings
7
and Recommendations generally to be supported by the record and proper analysis; however, in light
8
of defendants’ failure to appear to defend the case, the nature of defendants’ business, and the
9
likelihood that the expense of an accounting may be grossly disproportionate to the amount of
10
11
damages to be recovered from defendants, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
12
to order an accounting to determine damages to be impracticable. In addition, this Court declines
13
to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny attorneys’ fees.
14
15
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations, filed June
8, 2011, are adopted in part and rejected in part and:
16
17
1.
defendants Variety 99 Cents Plus and Tomy Le;
18
19
20
21
The Clerk of Court shall enter default judgment in favor of plaintiff and against
2.
Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees, and those persons in active concert
or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service
or otherwise, are permanently enjoined and restrained from:
22
23
24
25
26
a.
Using, copying, simulating, or in any other way infringing on plaintiff’s 99¢
marks, including all federally registered, state registered, and common law
service marks, trade names, and trade dress, including but not limited to
Federal Registration numbers 1,959,640; 2,401,900; 1,747,549; 1,741,928;
1,730,121; 1,712,553; 1,455,937; 1,395,427; 2,761,939; 3,132,449;
3,132,450; 3,144,871; and California State Registration numbers 23,078;
23,958; 40,745; and 42,970;
27
2
1
b.
Displaying any signage or other business identifiers, including but not limited
to building signs, directional signs, monument signs, computer templates,
banners, advertising media, menus, business cards, and brochures containing
prominently figured characters “99,” “99¢,” “$.99,” or “$0.99,” or any
characters confusingly similar thereto as the name or part of the name of
defendants’ business or corporation;
c.
Using “99,” “99¢,” “$.99,” or “$0.99,” or any mark confusingly similar
thereto, as the name or part of the name of defendants’ business or
corporation, and displaying any references to “99,” “99¢,” “$.99,” or “$0.99,”
or any mark confusingly similar thereto, in or in connection with defendants’
business or corporate name;
d.
Using the “¢” symbol to refer to “cent(s)” or “Cent(s)” as part of the name of
defendants’ business or on any signage as part of the name or identifier of
defendants’ business;
e.
Using the numeral “99" as a feature of any business or corporate name;
f.
Using the numeral “99" as a feature of any business identifiers, including but
not limited to building signs, directional signs, monument signs, computer
templates, banners, advertising media, menus, business cards, and brochures;
g.
Using the numeral “99" as a stylized of fanciful numeral as part of a business
name;
h.
Using any of the marks from plaintiff’s federally registered and common law
service marks, trade names, trade dress, or anything confusingly similar to the
operation of defendants’ business including the signage, storefront facade,
interior decor, shopping carts, bags, baskets, merchandise stickers, cash
register receipts, employee aprons, shirts, and name tags vehicles, letterhead,
purchase orders, company brochures and business cards, website and
advertising, or confusingly similar plaintiff’s other business identifiers, such
as building signs, directional signs, monument signs, computer templates,
banners, advertising media, and menus;
i.
Using purple, pink, or blue color hues, or combinations of colors, for the
mark and name of defendants’ business wherever that business mark or name
or both are used by defendants, including the use of the business mark or
name or both on the items and places set forth in paragraph h above;
j.
Referring to “99¢ store(s)” or “99¢ Store(s)” as if they were a generic term
applicable to a category of deep discount or other retail stores; and
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
1
k.
2
Using, copying, simulating, or otherwise mimicking plaintiff’s trade dress;
3.
The restrictions and provisions of paragraph 2 shall remain in force in perpetuity;
4.
This Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of making any further
3
4
orders necessary or proper for the construction of this Judgment, the enforcement
5
thereof, and the punishment of any violations thereof;
6
7
5.
8
The present case being exceptional, plaintiff is entitled to its reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs. Within fourteen (14) days of this order, plaintiff shall file with
9
Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder a declaration of its costs and fees incurred as a
10
result of this litigation; and
11
6.
12
13
Plaintiff shall personally serve a copy of this order on defendants. Within ten (10)
days thereafter, plaintiff shall file its proof of service with the Court.
14
15
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
66h44d
July 11, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4
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?