Coach, Inc. et al v. City Gear, LLC et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for default judgment [# 11 ] is granted. A default judgment in accord with this decision is entered separately. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice [#12] defendant Kaleb Davis, individually, is granted. Signed by Honorable Catherine D. Perry on January 23, 2012. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

COACH, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY GEAR, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:11CV1677 CDP
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. brought this trademark
infringement action against defendants City Gear, LLC, Kaleb Davis, Timothy
Ray Davis, and Does 1 through 100, for selling counterfeit Coach bags.
Defendants City Gear and Timothy Ray Davis were served on October 4, 2011,
but failed to plead or otherwise respond by the October 25, 2011 deadline. Coach
now moves for default judgment, which I will grant.
“Once a default is entered...defendant is deemed to have admitted all well
pleaded allegations in the complaint.” Taylor v. City of Ballwin, Mo., 859 F.2d
1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Carribean Produce Exch. v. Caribe HydroTrailer, Inc., 65 F.R.D. 46, 48 (D.P.R. 1974)). Coach’s complaint alleges that City
Gear and Davis negligently or intentionally and willfully offered for sale

counterfeit merchandise bearing Coach’s trademarks. Since City Gear and Davis
are deemed to have admitted these allegations, Coach is entitled to statutory
damages under the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). The Lanham Act
authorizes statutory damages of “not less than $1,000 or more than $200,000 per
counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed,
as the court considers just,” or “if the court finds that the use of the counterfeit
mark was willful, not more than $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods
or services sold.” Id.
According to the complaint, an assistant for Coach entered City Gear and
observed ten handbags bearing the Coach Heritage logo. Docket No. 1 at ¶ 30(C).
One of these bags was purchased, inspected by a Coach investigator, and
determined to be a counterfeit. Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 30(D)–(F). Coach requests
$500,000 in statutory damages. In its proposed order Coach calculates the total as
$100,000 per counterfeit mark per type of good. Docket No. 11-4 at 3.
The statute “does not provide guidelines for courts to use in determining an
appropriate award,” Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Veit, 221 F. Supp. 2d 567, 583
(E.D. Pa. 2002), and is only limited by what “the court considers just.” 15 U.S.C.
§ 1117(c). Factors courts have considered in determining an award include (1) the
expenses saved and the profits reaped; (2) the revenues lost by the plaintiff; (3) the
-2-

value of the trademark; (4) the deterrent effect on others besides the defendant; (5)
whether the defendant's conduct was innocent or willful; (6) whether a defendant
has cooperated in providing particular records from which to assess the value of
the infringing material produced; and (7) the potential for discouraging the
defendant. Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. Luban, 282 F. Supp. 2d 123, 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
(quoting Fitzgerald Pub. Co., Inc. v. Baylor Pub. Co., 807 F.2d 1110, 1117 (2d
Cir. 1986)).
Taking these factors into account, particularly in light of the fact that
defendants’ failure to respond in this case make their expenses saved and profits
reaped unknowable, I agree that $100,000 is an appropriate amount of damages for
the violation. As pled, there is one type of good (handbag) and one specific
trademark (Heritage logo) at issue. Coach is therefore entitled to damages in the
amount of $100,000 total.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment
[#11] is granted. A default judgment in accord with this decision is entered
separately.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss
without prejudice [#12] defendant Kaleb Davis, individually, is granted.
-3-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Does 1–100 are dismissed
without prejudice.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 23rd day of January, 2012.

-4-