Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Anthony J. Alfonso

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 12, 2021·No. 8:21-cv-00644·Unknown

Opinion

JS-6

ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA, INC., CASE NO. 8:21-cv-00644-DOC-(JDEx) a California corporation, Plaintiff, ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING APPLICATION FOR v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT ORIGINAL BUSINESS ANTHONY J. ALFONSO, an MEDIA, LLC. [24] individual; ORIGINAL BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC, a Missouri limited Judge: Hon. David O. Carter liability company; and DOES 1-10, Date: July 19, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Defendants. Location: Courtroom 9D Upon consideration of Plaintiff Entrepreneur Media, Inc.’s (“EMI”) Application for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Original Business

Media, LLC (the “Application”) and all supporting documents and pleadings of

record, and good cause appearing therein, the Court hereby ORDERS that the

Application is GRANTED, and finds as follows:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) provides that a court may enter

default judgment and, if necessary to effectuate judgment, conduct an accounting,

determine the amount of damages, establish the truth of any allegation by

evidence, or investigate any other matter. While the decision to grant or deny an

application for default judgment is within the Court’s discretion, “[i]n applying

th[e] discretionary standard, default judgments are more often granted than

denied.” PepsiCo v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 431, 432 (C.D. Cal. 1999).

Courts are guided by the following factors when determining whether to grant

default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of

plaintiff’s substantive claim and the sufficiency of the complaint, (3) the sum of

money at stake in the action, (4) the possibility of a dispute concerning material

facts and whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (5) the likelihood

of obtaining a decision on the merits, which is favored. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d

1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). A plaintiff establishes trademark infringement or

unfair competition by demonstrating that it has a protectable interest in the

infringed mark, and the defendant’s use of the mark is “likely to cause consumer

confusion.” Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, 638 F.3d 1137,

1144 (9th Cir. 2011).

Here, the enumerated factors weigh heavily in favor of granting default

judgment and awarding the requested relief. EMI has complied with the

procedural requirements for default judgment, including securing the entry of

default against Defendant Original Business Media, LLC (“Defendant”). As discussed below, Defendant has infringed EMI’s strong and distinctive marks and shows no signs of abating. Because all allegations, except for those pertaining to damages, are taken as true once the Court Clerk enters default, there is no possibility of a dispute concerning the material facts. See Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, there is no evidence of excusable neglect in the record, in particular since EMI made Defendant aware of the action by properly serving court documents on Defendant. Finally, while cases should be decided on the merits whenever possible, Defendant’s failure to defend this action has made a decision on the merits impractical, if not impossible. Elektra Entm’t Grp. Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 388, 392 (C_D. Cal. 2005). 12/11. EMIl’S TRADEMARK RIGHTS EMI owns the following valid U.S. trademark registrations (collectively, “EMI Marks”): TRADEMARK CLASS: GOODS/SERVICES REG. NO. REG. DATE || ENTREPRENEUR | 16: Paper goods and printed matter; namely 1,453,968 magazines, books, and published reports pertaining to August 25, business opportunities 1987 ENTREPRENEUR | 35: Advertising and business services, namely, 2,263,883 arranging for the promotion of the goods and services | July 27, 1999 of others by means of a global computer network and other computer online services providers; providing business information for the use of customers in the field of starting and operating small businesses and permitting customers to obtain information via a global computer network and other computer online service providers; and web advertising services, namely, providing active links to the websites of others ENTREPRENEUR | 35: Arranging and conducting trade show exhibitions 2,502,032 in the field of entrepreneurial activities, namely, the October 30, start-up and operation of small business enterprises 2001 41: Educational services, namely, conducting seminars on the development and operation of businesses, and conducting workshops on computer technology, a7 telecommunications, marketing, financing options, real estate management, tax planning, and insurance CASE NO. 8:21-cv-00644-DOC-J 2 ORDER AND JUDGMENT □□□□□□□

> REG. DATE ENTREPRENEUR | 38: Streaming of video and digital material on the 4,260,948 2012 ENTREPRENEUR | 9: Downloadable computer software and software for 4,345,424 mobile devices for the reproduction, display, and June 4, 2013 distribution of digitized content ENTREPRENEUR | 9: Pre-recorded audio and audiovisual recordings of $,256,907 programs concerning strategies and other how-to August 1, information about starting and successfully operating 2017 businesses, successful business owners and other information of interest to business owners and members of the general public interested in owning and operating a business, in the form of downloadable recordings ll 38: Streaming of audiovisual and multimedia content via the internet; transmission and delivery of audiovisual and multimedia content via the internet; B video-on-demand transmission services; mobile media services in the nature of electronic transmission, wireless broadcasting and electronic delivery of audio, video and multimedia entertainment content, namely, text, data, images, audio, video, and audiovisual files provided via the internet; video broadcasting services over the internet or other communications network, namely, electronically transmitting video clips; internet broadcasting services; providing streaming of audio and video in the nature of programs concerning strategies and other how-to information about starting and successfully operating businesses, successful business owners and other information of interest to business owners and members of the general public 71 interested in owning and operating a business, namely, audio, visual, and audiovisual matter for others via global computer networks; broadcasting and transmission of analog television, digital television, cable television, satellite television, pay television, interactive television, radio, and internet programs; broadcasting of internet programs via radio and television; broadcasting of programs provided over the internet; streaming audio, video, and audiovisual content, data and information on the Internet, communications networks and wireless telecommunications networks: providing video on- demand transmission of audio, video and audiovisual content, data and information; transmission of audio, CASE NO. 8:21-cv-00644-DOC-J 3 ORDER AND JUDGMENT □□□□□□□

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Anthony J. Alfonso, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Anthony J. Alfonso (Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Anthony J. Alfonso) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc.
653 F.3d 1066 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp.
528 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Heroes, Inc. v. Heroes Foundation
958 F. Supp. 1 (District of Columbia, 1996)
Discovery Communications, Inc. v. Animal Planet, Inc.
172 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (C.D. California, 2001)
La Quinta Worldwide LLC v. Q.R.T.M., S.A. De C.V.
762 F.3d 867 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Bernard Picot v. Dean Weston
780 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
The Przemysl
23 F.2d 336 (E.D. Louisiana, 1927)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith
101 F. App'x 212 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
Pepsico, Inc. v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc.
189 F.R.D. 431 (C.D. California, 1999)
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Castworld Products, Inc.
219 F.R.D. 494 (C.D. California, 2003)
Rastelli v. Warden
782 F.2d 17 (Second Circuit, 1986)
Sousa v. National Labor Relations Board
817 F.2d 10 (Second Circuit, 1987)
E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co.
967 F.2d 1280 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)