Goyard St-Honore v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

S.D. Florida

Goyard St-Honore v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided January 2, 2020·No. 0:19-cv-60168·Unknown

Opinion

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Goyard St-Honore, Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 19-60168-Civ-Scola Goyy, and others, Defendants. )

Final Default Judgment And Permanent Injunction Against Defendants 1-5, 7-19, 21-24, 26-29, 31-35, 37-40, 42-44, 46-48, 50-54, and 56-64 This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 46). The Plaintiff has moved for a default judgment consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). The Clerk of the Court entered a default under Rule 55(a). (Clerk’s Default, ECF No. 35.) “A defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact,” as set forth in the operative complaint. Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, “a sufficient basis must still exist in the pleadings to state a claim before a court may enter a default judgment.” Under Armour, Inc. v. 51nfljersey.com, No. 13–62809–CIV, 2014 WL 1652044, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2014) (Rosenbaum, J.) “A defendant’s default does not in itself warrant the court entering a default judgment.” Luxottica Grp. S.p.A. v. Individual, P’ship or Unincorporated Ass’n, No. 17-CV-61471, 2017 WL 6949260, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2017) (Bloom, J.) (quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). A defendant is “not held to admit facts that are not well pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.” Id. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s motion, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has established the facts necessary to enter default judgment. Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 46) is granted. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Plaintiff, Goyard St-Honore (“Plaintiff”), and against the Defendants, the Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule “A” attached hereto (collectively “Defendants”), on all counts of the Amended Complaint as follows: 1. Jurisdiction This Consent Judgment is subject to the jurisdictional constraints of the Lanham Act. See Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952); Int’l Café, S.A.L. v. Hard Rock Café Int’l (U.S.A.), Inc., 252 F.3d 1274, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2001). 2. Permanent Injunctive Relief: The Defendants and their officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from:

a. manufacturing or causing to be manufactured, importing, advertising or promoting, distributing, selling or offering to sell counterfeit and infringing goods bearing the Plaintiff’s trademarks or any confusingly similar trademarks identified in Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint (the “Goyard Marks”);

b. using the Goyard Marks in connection with the sale of any unauthorized goods;

c. using any logo, and/or layout which may be calculated to falsely advertise the services or products of the Defendants offered for sale or sold through the Internet based e-commerce stores operating under their seller identification names identified on Schedule “A” (the “Seller IDs”) and/or any other e-commerce marketplace store, seller identity, website, or business, as being sponsored by, authorized by, endorsed by, or in any way associated with the Plaintiff;

d. falsely representing themselves as being connected with the Plaintiff, through sponsorship or association;

e. engaging in any act which is likely to falsely cause members of the trade and/or of the purchasing public to believe any goods or services of the Defendants are in any way endorsed by, approved by, and/or associated with the Plaintiff;

f. using any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the Goyard Marks in connection with the publicity, promotion, sale, or advertising of any goods sold by the Defendants;

g. affixing, applying, annexing or using in connection with the sale of any goods, a false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending to falsely describe or represent goods offered for sale or sold by the Defendants as being those of the Plaintiff or in any way endorsed by the Plaintiff;

h. otherwise unfairly competing with the Plaintiff;

i. using the Goyard Marks, or any confusingly similar trademarks on e-commerce marketplace sites, metatages or other markers within website source code, from use on any webpage (including as the title of any web page), from any advertising links to other websites, from search engines’ databases or cache memory, and any other form of use of such terms that are visible to a computer user or serves to direct computer searches to Internet based e-commerce stores, seller identities, or website businesses registered by, owned, or operated by the Defendants; and

j. effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or utilizing any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the prohibitions set forth above.

3. Additional Equitable Relief: The Plaintiff is additionally entitled to the following equitable relief: a. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Internet marketplace website operators and/or administrators for the Seller IDs, including but not limited to Amazon.com, Inc., eBay Inc., and ContextLogic, Inc., which operates the Wish.com platform, shall permanently remove from the multiple platforms, which include, inter alia, a Direct platform, Group platform, Seller Product Management platform, Vendor Product Management platform, and Brand Registry platform, any and all listings and associated images of goods bearing counterfeits and/or infringements of the Goyard Marks via the e-commerce stores operating under the Seller IDs, including but not limited to the listings and associated images identified by the Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (“ASIN”) on Schedule “A” hereto, and any other listings and images of goods bearing counterfeits and/or infringements of the Goyard Marks associated with any “parent” and “child” ASIN linked to the same sellers or any other alias seller identification names being used and/or controlled by the Defendants to promote, offer for sale and/or sell goods bearing and/or using counterfeits and/or infringements of the Goyard Marks; and b. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, any Internet marketplace website operator and/or administrator who is in possession, custody, or control of the Defendants’ goods bearing and/or using one or more of the Goyard Marks, including but not limited to Amazon.com, Inc., eBay Inc., and ContextLogic, Inc., which operates the Wish.com platform, shall permanently cease fulfillment of and sequester those goods, and surrender the same to the Plaintiff. 4. Statutory damages in favor of the Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) are determined to be $100,000.00 against each Defendant, for which let execution issue.

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