CRESTWOOD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. v. CRESTWOOD PARTNERS, INC.
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 10/16/17. (cm, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CREST WOOD CAPITAL
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-5588 (JLL)
CRESTWOOD PARTNERS, INC.,
LINARES, Chief District Judge
IT APPEARING THAT:
The plaintiff is in the business of “providing financial services,
capital investment services, investment management services, and hedge fund investment
services.” (ECF No. 1 at 1—2.) The plaintiff, in relation to its business, is the owner of
the registrations in the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the following
trademarks: “Crestwood”; “Crestwood Capital International”; “Crestwood Capital
Partners”; “Crestwood Capital Partners II”; and “Crestwood Capital Management”
(collectively, “the Crestwood Trademarks”). (ECF No. 1-2 at 2—10.)
The plaintiff alleges in this action that the defendant, which is in the
business of providing financial services and investment services, is infringing the
Crestwood Trademarks and engaging in unfair competition by operating its business
under the names “Crestwood” and “Crestwood Partners, Inc.” in violation of 15 U.S.C.
1114 and 1125. (ECFNo. 1 at2—11.)
The Clerk of the Court has entered default in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant in accordance with Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
(ECF No. 8.)
The plaintiff now moves for: (a) the entry of default judgment against the
defendant pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2); (b) an award consisting of attorneys’ fees and costs
in the amount of $13,410.73 that it has expended as the prevailing party in an exceptional
trademark infringement action pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1117(a); and (c) an award of any
costs that it may incur in enforcing the default judgment.
(ECF No. 9.)
In support of
the motion, the plaintiff has submitted proof of the defendant’s liability as to the
infringement of the Crestwood Trademarks and of the attorneys’ fees and costs that it has
expended in this action.
(ECF No. 9 through ECF No. 9-8.)
In addition, the plaintiff has demonstrated that it has: (a) notified the
defendant about the entry of default; and (b) served the motion papers upon the
(ECF No. 7-3 at 1; ECF No. 9-8 at 1.)
The plaintiff “is not requesting an accounting or compensatory damages” as
part of the relief that it seeks against the defendant in the motion.
(ECF No. 9-1 at 14.)
The defendant has not opposed the motion, even though the time to do so
The Court’s independent research reveals that the defendant does not have
any pending petitions for bankruptcy protection, and thus the defendant could have
responded to the motion.
The Court decides the motion without oral argument.
See L. Civ. R.
The Court grants the motion in its entirety, because the Court’s review of the
supporting papers reveals that the plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to relief.
The Court notes that the defendant has an available avenue to contest the
entry of default judgment, if appropriate.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) (stating a court “may
set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b)”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
(setting forth the grounds for relief from a final judgment).
For good cause appearing,
the Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.
Chi Judge, United States District Court
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?