GlobalTap, LLC v. Petersen Manufacturing Co. Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedDecember 12, 2018
Docket1:18-cv-05383
StatusUnknown

This text of GlobalTap, LLC v. Petersen Manufacturing Co. Inc. (GlobalTap, LLC v. Petersen Manufacturing Co. Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
GlobalTap, LLC v. Petersen Manufacturing Co. Inc., (N.D. Ill. 2018).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GLOBALTAP, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 1:18-cv-05383 ) PETERSEN MANUFACTURING ) CO. INC., CHRIS PETERSEN, MIKE ) Hon. Judge Charles SIEMER, W.W. GRAINGER, INC., ) Charles Norgle ZORO TOOLS, INC., PARK ) N’POOOL, INC., NEOBITS, INC., ) AND CAREFORDE SAFETY, INC. ) ) Defendants. ) Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant, Park n’ Pool, Inc. Plaintiff, GlobalTap, LLC, through its undersigned counsel, Patterson Law Firm, LLC, and for its Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant, Park n’ Pool, Inc., pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(a) and 55(b)(2), states as follows: Facts 1. Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint on August 8, 2018, asserting claims against several defendants. (Dkt. # 1.) 2. As set forth in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, Plaintiff possesses two design patents related to the design of free-standing outdoor water bottle filling stations: D634,394 S (“’394 Patent”) and D646,348 S (“’348 Patent”). (Dkt. # 1 at ¶¶ 23-28.) 3. Plaintiff also owns two registered service marks, identified as the Water Drop Mark (Registration No. 4,775,089) and the Word Mark (Registration No. 4,920,350) in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Dkt. # 1 at ¶¶ 29- 31.)

4. Count II of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint asserts against Park n’ Pool, among others, infringement of the ‘394 Patent. Count IV of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint asserts against Park n’ Pool and Careforde, among others, infringement of the ‘348 Patent. (Dkt. # 1 at Counts II and IV.) 5. Count VI of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint asserts against Park n’ Pool, among others, several Lanham Act violations. Specifically, Park n’ Pool has used and continues to use Plaintiff’s Word Mark and Water

Drop Mark on products sold in the United States, without license, consent, or other authorization, and in relation to the marketing, promotion, or advertising of the infringing products, including, but not limited to, promoting the products as genuine GlobalTap products and including the Word Mark and Water Drop Mark on the products, manuals, and marketing materials. (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 118.) 6. This unauthorized use of the Word Mark and Water Drop Mark is likely to confuse consumers because it is used in conjunction with

GlobalTap’s patented designs, as well as other designs developed by GlobalTap. (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 119.) 7. Park n’ Pool’s use of Plaintiff’s Word Mark and Water Drop Mark in conjunction with GlobalTap’s designs amounts to counterfeiting, in that each of these Defendants is selling identical or substantially indistinguishable products under the GlobalTap name and including the

Word Mark and Water Drop Mark without Plaintiff’s license, consent, or authorization. (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 120.) 8. Park n’ Pool acted and is acting willfully in disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 120.) 9. Park n’ Pool was served with a Summons and the Verified Complaint in this matter on October 8, 2018. See Affidavit of Peter Evans, attached hereto as Exhibit A at ¶ 5. 10.As reflected in the Court’s docket, it has not appeared or filed a

responsive pleading. See Exhibit A at ¶ 7. Analysis 11.This Court properly has jurisdiction over the claims raised against Park n’ Pool pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), which grants the district courts “original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents . . . and trademarks.” 12.This Court properly has jurisdiction over Park n’ Pool pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a), because Park

n’ Pool has transacted business in Illinois by virtue of its advertising and sales of products, including products marketed as GlobalTap products, to individuals and entities located in Illinois. See uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421, 423-24 (7th Cir. 2010). 13.Pursuant to Rule 55(a), “when a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend,

and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). As set forth above, Park n’ Pool was served on October 8, 2018. Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i), Defendant was to answer or otherwise plead within 21 days. Park n’ Pool has not appeared or filed any responsive pleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests for entry of default against Park n’ Pool. 14.Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), the Court may enter a default judgment against the defaulting parties, which establishes as a matter of

law that the defaulting defendants are liable on each claim asserted against them. United States v. Di Mucci, 879 F.2d 1488, 1497 (7th Cir. 1989). In addressing a motion for entry of default judgment, the Court must take as true the factual allegations of the complaint. Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1399 (7th Cir. 1994). 15.Plaintiff has alleged that it possesses two valid, protected marks; Park n’ Pool is not authorized to use the marks; and their use of the marks is likely to cause confusion among consumers, which is sufficient

to establish a claim under the Lanham Act. Bliss Salon Day Spa v. Bliss World, LLC, 268 F.3d 494, 496-97 (7th Cir. 2001). 16.Park n’ Pool’s infringement is apparent from its website, which markets the counterfeit products to the public. See Exhibits E to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint (Dkt. # 1.) As of December 10, 2018, Park n’ Pool continued to list for sale on its website three product models

identified as GlobalTap products and including the Word Mark and Water Drop Mark. See https://www.parknpool.com/search‐ v1610.php?search=water+bottle+filling+station&Search1=find (accessed on Dec. 10, 2018). It does so despite knowledge of Plaintiff’s claims. 17.Because Park n’ Pool has failed to defend itself in this action, Plaintiff requests an entry of default judgment against it and requests an award of statutory damages as authorized under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) for its willful infringement and counterfeiting of Plaintiff’s Word Mark and

Water Drop Mark, as well as permanent injunctive relief as authorized under 15 U.S.C. § 1116. Damages 18.Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), in cases involving counterfeit marks, a plaintiff may elect to receive “not less than $1,000 or more than $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed, as the court considers just.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(1). If the counterfeiting is willful, statutory damages may be

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
GlobalTap, LLC v. Petersen Manufacturing Co. Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/globaltap-llc-v-petersen-manufacturing-co-inc-ilnd-2018.