Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Anthony J. Alfonso

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 12, 2021
Docket8:21-cv-00644
StatusUnknown

This text of Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Anthony J. Alfonso (Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Anthony J. Alfonso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SOUTHERN DIVISION 12

13 ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA, INC., CASE NO. 8:21-cv-00644-DOC-(JDEx) a California corporation, 14 Plaintiff, ORDER AND JUDGMENT 15 GRANTING APPLICATION FOR v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST 16 DEFENDANT ORIGINAL BUSINESS ANTHONY J. ALFONSO, an MEDIA, LLC. [24] 17 individual; ORIGINAL BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC, a Missouri limited Judge: Hon. David O. Carter 18 liability company; and DOES 1-10, Date: July 19, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. 19 Defendants. Location: Courtroom 9D 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Upon consideration of Plaintiff Entrepreneur Media, Inc.’s (“EMI”) 2 Application for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Original Business

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

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

5 Application is GRANTED, and finds as follows:

6 I. DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). A plaintiff establishes trademark infringement or

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

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

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

24 1144 (9th Cir. 2011).

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

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

27 procedural requirements for default judgment, including securing the entry of

28 default against Defendant Original Business Media, LLC (“Defendant”). As 1 || discussed below, Defendant has infringed EMI’s strong and distinctive marks and 2 || shows no signs of abating. Because all allegations, except for those pertaining to 3 | damages, are taken as true once the Court Clerk enters default, there is no 4 || possibility of a dispute concerning the material facts. See Derek Andrew, Inc. v. 5 | Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, there is no 6 | evidence of excusable neglect in the record, in particular since EMI made 7 | Defendant aware of the action by properly serving court documents on Defendant. 8 | Finally, while cases should be decided on the merits whenever possible, 9 || Defendant’s failure to defend this action has made a decision on the merits 10 || impractical, if not impossible. Elektra Entm’t Grp. Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 11 || 388, 392 (C_D. Cal. 2005). 12/11. EMIl’S TRADEMARK RIGHTS 13 EMI owns the following valid U.S. trademark registrations (collectively, 14 || “EMI Marks”): 15 TRADEMARK CLASS: GOODS/SERVICES REG. NO. REG. DATE 16 || ENTREPRENEUR | 16: Paper goods and printed matter; namely 1,453,968 magazines, books, and published reports pertaining to August 25, 17 business opportunities 1987 18 ENTREPRENEUR | 35: Advertising and business services, namely, 2,263,883 arranging for the promotion of the goods and services | July 27, 1999 19 of others by means of a global computer network and other computer online services providers; providing 20 business information for the use of customers in the field of starting and operating small businesses and 21 permitting customers to obtain information via a global computer network and other computer online service providers; and web advertising services, namely, 3 providing active links to the websites of others ENTREPRENEUR | 35: Arranging and conducting trade show exhibitions 2,502,032 24 in the field of entrepreneurial activities, namely, the October 30, start-up and operation of small business enterprises 2001 25 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 28 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 4 ENTREPRENEUR | 9: Downloadable computer software and software for 4,345,424 mobile devices for the reproduction, display, and June 4, 2013 5 distribution of digitized content 6 ENTREPRENEUR | 9: Pre-recorded audio and audiovisual recordings of $,256,907 7 programs concerning strategies and other how-to August 1, information about starting and successfully operating 2017 8 businesses, successful business owners and other 9 information of interest to business owners and members of the general public interested in owning 10 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 12 audiovisual and multimedia content via the internet; B video-on-demand transmission services; mobile media services in the nature of electronic transmission, 14 wireless broadcasting and electronic delivery of audio, video and multimedia entertainment content, namely, 15 text, data, images, audio, video, and audiovisual files provided via the internet; video broadcasting services 16 over the internet or other communications network, 17 namely, electronically transmitting video clips; internet broadcasting services; providing streaming of audio 18 and video in the nature of programs concerning strategies and other how-to information about starting 19 and successfully operating businesses, successful business owners and other information of interest to 20 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 22 global computer networks; broadcasting and transmission of analog television, digital television, 23 cable television, satellite television, pay television, interactive television, radio, and internet programs; 24 broadcasting of internet programs via radio and 5 television; broadcasting of programs provided over the internet; streaming audio, video, and audiovisual 26 content, data and information on the Internet, communications networks and wireless 27 telecommunications networks: providing video on- demand transmission of audio, video and audiovisual 28 content, data and information; transmission of audio, CASE NO. 8:21-cv-00644-DOC-J 3 ORDER AND JUDGMENT □□□□□□□

1 TRADEMARK CLASS: GOODS/SERVICES REG. NO. > REG.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Anthony J. Alfonso, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/entrepreneur-media-inc-v-anthony-j-alfonso-cacd-2021.