Shenzhen Ruobilin Network Technology, Ltd. v. SJG-Lens et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 23 Motion for Entry of Default. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/9/17. (jat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SHENZHEN RUOBILIN NETWORK
TECHNOLOGY, LTD.,

v.

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

SJG-LENS, MODERN HOME PRODUCTS,
COFFEE AND TOY, DAILY NECESSITY
ENTERPRISES, and SERVING YOUR
SUCCESS,

16-cv-386-wmc

Defendants.
Plaintiff Shenzhen Ruobilin Network Technology, Ltd. (“Ruobilin”), alleges that
defendants SJG-Lens, Modern Home Products, Coffee and Toy, Daily Necessity
Enterprises and Serving Your Success violated the Lanham Act by distributing and selling
products under plaintiff’s ACOMPATIBLE trademark on Amazon.com. (Compl. (dkt.
#1).) The court previously granted plaintiff leave to serve each defendant electronically
through the Amazon communication system or similar reliable online system (dkt. #18),
and plaintiff effectuated service (dkt. #19), but the four remaining above-captioned
defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s complaint. Accordingly, the
Clerk of the Court has entered a default against each. (Dkt. #27.)
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, seeking an award of
damages and a permanent injunction against each of the defendants. (Dkt. #23.) The
court held a hearing on the motion on May 10, 2017, at which plaintiff appeared by
counsel. During the hearing, the court raised some concerns with plaintiff’s evidence of
damages and provided plaintiff with an opportunity to supplement its submission in the

following respects: (1) additional proof of lost profits; (2) evidence of defendants taking
up infringing activities through related companies; and (3) plaintiff’s reasonable costs and
attorney’s fees. While plaintiff was initially interested in supplementing its submission, it
has since indicated that either the evidence is not available or a request for additional
damages and attorney’s fees is not worthwhile in light of the difficulty of collecting on any
money judgment. (Dkt. #30.) In light of this supplemental submission, the court will
now grant plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and enter a permanent injunction barring
each defendant from using plaintiff’s trademark.

OPINION
Because default was entered against the remaining defendants, the court accepts as
true all of the factual allegations in the complaint, except those relating to damages. In re
Catt, 368 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2004). In its complaint, plaintiff alleges that it is a
Chinese corporation that distributes product lines throughout the United States, including
bags

for

cameras,

photographic

equipment

and

electronic

devices

with

the

“ACOMPATIBLE” trademark, issued by the USPTO on February 25, 2014, with
Registration No. 4,488,016. (Compl. (dkt. #1) ¶ 6.) Each of the remaining defendants
sold counterfeit products under the ACOMPATIBLE mark on Amazon.com. (Id. at ¶¶ 12,
14-16, 18; see also Exs. B, D-F, H (dkt. ##1-3, 1-5 to 1-7, 1-9).) Plaintiff alleges that the
unauthorized use of its trademark by these defendants violates various provisions of the
Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 (trademark infringement), 1125(a) (false designation of
origin), 1125(c) (trademark dilution).
In its motion for default judgment, plaintiff seeks (1) its actual damages, in the form

2

of lost profits; (2) enhancement of those damages for willful infringement; (3) a permanent
injunction; and (4) its attorney’s fees and costs. 1 The Lanham Act allows for each of these
remedies. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) (providing for any damages sustained by the plaintiff and
the costs of the action); id. at § 1117(b) (allowing for trebling of damages for counterfeit
marks); id. at § 1116 (setting forth grounds for injunctive relief). At this point, plaintiff
only seeks injunctive relief as mentioned above.
Plaintiff seeks entry of a permanent injunction that would bar defendants from
using plaintiff’s trademark on any new websites and online marketplace accounts. Title
15 U.S.C. § 1116 provides for the entry of injunctive relief in Lanham Act claims. To be
entitled to injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) irreparable injury; (2)
inadequate remedies at law; (3) the balance of hardships favors injunctive relief; and (4)
the public interest would not be disserved. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388,
391 (2006). As this court has previously acknowledged in entering default judgment, “[i]t
is not uncommon for courts to issue injunctions as part of default judgments.” Epic Sys.
Corp. v. Silver, No. 13-CV-355-WMC, 2014 WL 2694051, at *1 (W.D. Wis. June 13,
2014) (citing cases.)
By virtue of defendants’ default, plaintiff has succeeded on the merits of its

In the conclusion of its brief, plaintiff also requests that the court enter an order “transferring all
assets in Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts operated by Amazon to Ruobilin to cover the
losses sustained by Ruobilin as a result of Defaulting Defendants’ infringing activity.” (Pl.’s Br.
(dkt. #24) 20.) Plaintiff fails to provide any support for the court taking this additional step
without a showing that (1) efforts have been made to collect on the judgment itself and (2) what
amounts to an attachment action should not be pursued in an appropriate venue against Amazon
itself. As such, the court will deny that request at this time. Given the court’s decision not to award
damages, such a request appears moot in any event.
1

3

trademark infringement actions.

As for the factors governing entry of an injunction,

“trademark infringement, by [its] very nature, carr[ies] a presumption of harm.” Epic Sys.,
2014 WL 26940, at *1. As a result, the court’s entry of an injunction here to deter future
sales of counterfeit goods is amply justified by defendants’ failure to defend this lawsuit,
the willful nature of their infringement and the absence of a viable monetary damages
claim. Moreover, because “it is not a burden on [defendants] to follow the law,” the court
finds that the balance of harms weighs heavily in favor of entering an injunction, as does
the public interest in protecting trademarks. Id. at *2. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to
the injunctive relief set forth in the Order below.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Shenzhen Ruobilin Network Technology, Ltd.’s motion for entry of
default judgment (dkt. #23) is GRANTED.
2) Defendants SJG-Lens, Modern Home Products, Coffee and Toy, Daily Necessity
Enterprises and Serving Your Success are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED
from any direct or indirect use of plaintiff’s ACompatible trademark,
Registration No. 4,488,016.
3) The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor consistent
with this order and close this case.
Entered this 9th day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

4