Coach, Inc. et al v. Linda's Accesorios Y Cellulares et al
Filing
13
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 11 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 6/30/2011) (ddb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
COACH, INC. AND COACH SERVICES, §
INC.,
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
v.
§
§
LINDA’S ACCESORIOS Y
§
CELLULARES AND ERLINDA
§
HERNANDEZ,
§
§
Defendants.
§
Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-0496-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, filed June 28, 2011.
After consideration of the motion, brief, record, and applicable law, the court grants Plaintiff’s
Motion for Entry of Default Judgment.
I.
Background
Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint in this
court on March 9, 2011, seeking relief against Defendants Linda’s Accesorios Y Cellulares and
Erlinda Hernandez (“Defendants”). This is an action for trademark and trade dress infringement,
counterfeiting, false designation of origin and false advertising, and trademark dilution under the
Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 1117, 1125(a),(c), and (d)); copyright infringement under
the United States Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 501 et seq.); injury to business reputation and
trademark dilution under Section 16.29 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code (“TBCC”); and
trademark infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment under the common law of the
State of Texas.
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1
Defendants were properly served on March 9, 2011, and to date have not filed an answer to
Plaintiffs’ Complaint or otherwise defended in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs requested the clerk to issue
entry of default on May 13, 2011, and default was entered by the clerk on May 13, 2011. Plaintiffs
now request entry of default judgment against Defendants for statutory damages and a permanent
injunction; Plaintiffs further request reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
II.
Analysis
The court finds that because Defendants have neither filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint
nor otherwise defended in this lawsuit, and because Defendants are not infants, incompetent or in
the military, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against Defendants. The court therefore accepts as
true the well-pleaded allegations stated by Plaintiffs in their Complaint, the facts in Plaintiffs’
Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, and those set forth in the brief accompanying the motion.
A.
Damages
“A default judgment is a judgment on the merits that conclusively establishes the defendant’s
liability. But it does not establish the amount of damages.” See United States v. Shipco Gen., 814
F.2d 1011, 1014 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing TWA v. Hughes, 449 F.2d 51, 70 (2nd Cir. 1971)), rev’d on
other grounds, 409 U.S. 363 (1973); G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Webster Dictionary Co., 639 F.2d 29,
34 (1st Cir. 1980)). Plaintiffs ask the court to award $400,000 in damages. The statute allows
damages from $1,000 to $200,000 per mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(1) and (2).
Plaintiffs seek
$100,000 per mark. Plaintiffs do not provide any factual basis for the amount of damages requested.
The court believes the damages requested are excessive. The court does not believe that the nature
and frequency of Defendants’ conduct warrants such a large damage amount.
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2
Plaintiffs’ investigation of Defendants’ infringing conduct was limited.
investigator visited Defendants’ booth only on one occasion.
Plaintiffs’
The investigation revealed
approximately 75-100 items on this occasion. Had this been an instance in which Plaintiffs
conducted an extensive investigation that established the duration, frequency, and quantity of items
infringed over a period of time, the court might be more willing to award $400,000 in damages. The
court, however, does believe that the quantity of counterfeit items warrants a punishment that will
deter Defendants from future infringing conduct. The court believes that $5,000 per mark would
reasonably compensate Plaintiffs for the infringing conduct. Consequently, the court determines that
Plaintiffs are entitled to $20,000 in damages, which is within the statutory amount pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 1117(c)(1) and (2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a total amount of $20,000.
B.
Permanent Injunction
Plaintiffs further request the court to permanently enjoin Defendants from infringing upon
Plaintiffs’ trademark rights. To demonstrate entitlement to permanent injunctive relief, the movant
must establish the following: “(1) actual success on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy at law; (3)
that the threatened injury outweighs any damage to the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will
not disserve the public interest.” DSC Comms. Corp. v. DGI Tech., Inc., 81 F.3d 597, 600 (5th
Cir.1996) (reasoning that the Fifth Circuit applies traditional preliminary injunction factors in
copyright infringement cases). After a careful review of the evidence and authority, the court
determines that permanent injunctive relief is appropriate.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants, their
officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and upon those persons in active concert or
participation with them are forever enjoined:
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3
1.
from manufacturing, procuring, distribution, shipping, retailing, selling, advertising
or trafficking, in any merchandise, including cellphone cases, handbags, wallets, apparel,
sunglasses, jewelry and/or related merchandise, not authorized by Coach, bearing
unauthorized simulations, reproductions, counterfeits, copies or colorable imitations of the
Coach' Trademarks, or bearing a design or image which is of a substantially similar
appearance to Coach listed in the Original Complaint and in the Declaration of Tiffany
Walden;
2.
from passing off, inducing or enabling others to sell or pass off, as authentic products
produced by Coach or otherwise authorized by Coach, any product not manufactured by
Coach or produced under the control or supervision of Coach and approved by Coach, which
utilize any of the Coach Trademarks listed in the Original Complaint and in the Declaration
of Tiffany Walden;
3.
from committing any act calculated to cause purchasers to believe that the Default
Defendant(s) products are those sold under the control and supervision of Coach, or are
sponsored, approved or guaranteed by Coach, or are connected with and produced under the
control or supervision of Coach;
4.
from further diluting and infringing the Coach Trademarks and damaging their
goodwill;
5.
from engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with Coach or
that will cause the distinctiveness of the Coach Trademarks to be diluted; and
6.
from causing, aiding, and/or abetting any other person from doing any act proscribed
under (1) through (4) above.
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 4
C.
Costs and Attorney’s Fees
Plaintiffs also seek costs of $546.49 and reasonable attorney’s fees of $3,720. In support,
Plaintiffs submit—as part of the motion’s appendix—the declaration of attorney Natalie L. Arbaugh
of the law firm Fish & Richarson, PC, which represents Plaintiffs in this action. The declaration and
attached bill of costs detail the charges and expenses incurred on Plaintiffs’ behalf by the firm. The
declaration also makes clear that the amounts are reasonable and commensurate with amounts
typically charged in the Dallas-Fort Worth market for the legal services provided in a case like
Plaintiffs.
Having reviewed the declaration of Natalie L. Arbaugh and the attached billing records
against the backdrop of applicable law, the court determines that Plaintiffs are entitled to costs in
the amount of $546.49 and reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,720. Accordingly, the
court will award these amounts to Plaintiffs and determines that such rates for the legal and paralegal
services rendered in this case were reasonable and consistent with the rates charged for like
professionals within the local area legal community.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons herein stated, the court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment. Accordingly, the court hereby orders that default judgment be entered for Plaintiffs in
the amount of $20,000. Plaintiffs requested no prejudgment interest, and the court awarded none.
Costs in the amount of $546.49 and reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,720 are assessed
against Defendants. In accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment
will issue by separate document.
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 5
It is so ordered this 30th day of June, 2011.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 6
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?