MAUI LAND & PINEAPPLE CO., INC. v. Ewing

549 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17587, 2008 WL 647552
CourtDistrict Court, D. Hawaii
DecidedMarch 7, 2008
DocketCivil 07-00549DAE-BMK
StatusPublished

This text of 549 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (MAUI LAND & PINEAPPLE CO., INC. v. Ewing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Hawaii primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MAUI LAND & PINEAPPLE CO., INC. v. Ewing, 549 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17587, 2008 WL 647552 (D. Haw. 2008).

Opinion

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION

DAVID ALAN EZRA, District Judge.

The Finding and Recommendation having been filed and served on all parties on February 21, 2008, and no objections having been filed by any party,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 74.2, the “Finding and Recommendation that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment be Granted,” are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE GRANTED

BARRY M. KURREN, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs Maui Land and Pineapple Company, Inc.’s (MLP) and Kapalua Land Company Ltd.’s (KLC) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant, filed on January 4, 2008, (hereinafter, the “Motion”), came on for a hearing before Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren on January 18, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. Keri Ann K. Shigemura Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Defendant Don Ewing (“Defendant”) did not file an opposition to the Motion, and no one appeared on behalf of Defendant at the hearing.

The Court, having considered the Motion, declarations, and exhibits, as well as the records and files herein, and good cause appearing therefore, FINDS & RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment be GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff MLP is a Hawaii corporation, located and doing business at 700 Village Road, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii 96761. Plaintiff KLC is a Hawaii corporation, located and doing business at 700 Village Road, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii 96761. Defendant was and is at all times relevant herein, a resident of the County of Maui, State of Hawaii. On November 2, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendant Ewing seeking injunctive and declaratory relief for trademark infringement, false or misleading designations of origin and/or sponsorship, dilution, cyber-piracy, deceptive trade practices, and other related claims.

On November 14, 2007, Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Summons were served upon Defendant. Defendant’s response to the Complaint was due on December 4, 2007. Defendant Ewing failed to file any response to the Complaint, or plead or otherwise defend this action, and Entry of Default was entered against Defendant on December 13, 2008.

*1255 DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs have alleged that since 1975, they have continuously and actively used the mark “KAPALUA” in connection with the development of the Kapalua Resort on the Island of Maui, and a luxury real estate development located within the resort. Plaintiffs claim that it was, and still is, the intention of Plaintiffs that the name “Ka-palua” be used to distinguish the Kapalua Resort from other resort and real estate development projects.

On April 21, 1975, MLP registered “Ka-palua Resort” as a trade name, pursuant to Chapter 482, Haw.Rev.Stat., and has held it continuously to the present. On April 21, 1975, MLP also registered “Kapalua Bay Hotel” and “Kapalua Hotel” as trade names, pursuant to Chapter 482, Haw.Rev. Stat., and has held them continuously to the present. In addition to the trade names, on or about September 4, 1979, KLC obtained a State of Hawaii trademark registration for the word “Kapalua” with a stylized butterfly and a pineapple at the center (the “Butterfly Logo”), and has held and used it continuously to the present.

On January 18, 1977, KLC obtained a federal registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for the Butterfly Logo in connection with the following in International Class 41: “providing entertainment services in the form of swimming, golf and tennis facilities.” On April 23, 2003, KLC obtained a federal registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for “KAPALUA” in connection with the following in International Class 28: “golf divot tools; golf ball markers; golf balls; golf bag travel covers; golf putter covers”. On October 21, 2004, KLC obtained federal Trademark Registration No. 2,892,277 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for “KAPALUA” in connection with the following in International Class 42: “hotel, restaurant, health and beauty spa services.” On February 6, 2007, KLC obtained yet another federal registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Registration No. 3,204,802, for “KAPALUA” in connection with the following in International Class 41: “Resort services, namely providing facilities for golfing, tennis, art classes and swimming; rental of equipment for golfing, tennis, art classes and swimming.” Plaintiffs MLP and KLC have registered with the State of Hawaii and collectively hold over 80 trade name registrations that include the word “Kapalua.”

Defendant Ewing is the current registrant and holder of the Internet domain name, “KAPALUAWEDDINGS.COM”. Complaint at ¶ 31; Exhibit “I” attached to the Complaint. Plaintiffs claim that when Internet users search for “KAPALUA”, they are directed to a website having as its domain name “KAPALUAWED-DINGS.COM”, which is the website owned and maintained by Defendant. Plaintiffs claim that they did not and have not authorized Defendant’s use of Plaintiffs’ “Ka-palua” mark in connection with either the “KAPALUAWEDDINGS.COM” domain name for the website or in the website pages, or any goods or services to be offered therein.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ trade names, trademarks, and service marks using “Kapalua.” In particular Plaintiffs claim, in Counts 1-10, that:

1. Defendant engaged in unfair competition by falsely designating the origin of its goods and services through trade name and service mark infringement, and through misleading representation under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);
2. Defendant engaged in the unauthorized use of a registered mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1);
*1256 3. Defendant’s activities will lead to trade name or service mark dilution in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c);
4. Defendant has engaged in cyberpi-racy in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) by registering an identical or confusingly similar domain name;
5. Defendant has engaged in cyberpi-racy in violation of Haw.Rev.Stat. ' § 481B-22;
6. Defendant has engaged in unfair competition under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2;
7. Defendant has caused injury to Plaintiffs’ business reputations, and dilution, in violation of Haw.Rev.Stat.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
549 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17587, 2008 WL 647552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maui-land-pineapple-co-inc-v-ewing-hid-2008.