Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. www.Playboyrabbitars.app

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 13, 2022
Docket1:21-cv-08932
StatusUnknown

This text of Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. www.Playboyrabbitars.app (Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. www.Playboyrabbitars.app) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. www.Playboyrabbitars.app, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

ELECTRONICALLY FIL DOC #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT |LDATE FILED: □□□□□□ FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES : INTERNATIONAL, INC., . : 1:21 Civ. 08932 (VM) Plaintiff, “ JUDGMENT AND ORDER WWW.PLAYBOYRABBITARS.APP; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S WWW.PLAYBOYRABBIT.COM; VOZGEN ° MOTION FOR DEFAULT ZOLO; and JOHN DOES JUDGMENT AND OWNERS/OPERATORS OF THE . RELATED RELIEF COUNTERFEIT WEBSITES. □ Defendants.

This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff Playboy Enterprises International, Inc.’s (“Playboy”) Motion for Default Judgment and Related Relief, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55 and 65; and this Court having reviewed the papers and proceedings in support of that Motion, including Playboy’s Complaint, Memorandum of Law in support of the Motion, and the Declarations of Jennifer McCarthy and Maria R. Sinatra, along with accompanying exhibits; and this Court being fully satisfied that the Defendants were properly served with summonses, the Complaint [DKT. 9] (“Complaint”) and all other pertinent papers and proceedings in this action, and failed to respond as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12; and good cause being shown therefor; THE COURT HEREBY FINDS THAT: Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Playboy’s claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1338, and 15 U.S.C. § 1121. See Complaint JJ 10-11. 2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because:

a. The Defendants are operating the Counterfeit Websites accessible and interactive to users in this district and within New York state; and b. Playboy’s Complaint and moving papers demonstrate that the Defendants undertook the unlawful counterfeiting scheme intentionally with knowledge that the Counterfeit Websites would cause consumers and Playboy harm in New York

as Playboy does business in New York and has done business in New York for dozens of years. See Complaint ¶¶ 10-15; Memorandum of Law in Support of Default Judgment (“Memo of Law”), at 7. 3. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because: a. A substantial part of the conduct and the property at issue is located in this jurisdiction and the Complaint alleges facts to show that the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, and no other district appears more appropriately suited to resolve this dispute. See Complaint ¶ 15.

2. The Complaint pleads sufficient facts and states claims against Defendants for: a. Trademark counterfeiting, unfair competition, and false designation of origin, in violation of the Lanham Act, Sections 32 and 43(a) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a) (Counts I and II) (Memo of Law at 17-18); and b. Trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of New York common law (Count III) (Memo of Law at 18-19). 3. The Court finds that Playboy has provided sufficient facts demonstrating that Defendants’ conduct in this action was undertaken willfully (Complaint ¶¶ 85-98; Memo of Law at 19-20). 4. The Court finds that Playboy’s request for statutory damages in its Motion is reasonable, particularly as to Defendants’ willful infringement, within the Court’s discretion, and permitted under the Lanham Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c); Jennifer McCarthy Declaration ¶¶ 15-23. The Court further finds that statutory damages in this case in the amount requested by Playboy is warranted to deter the Defendants and others from

engaging in similar online counterfeiting schemes. 5. The Court finds that Playboy has established each of the factors required for a permanent injunction, namely (1) Playboy has shown it is entitled to injunctive relief under the Lanham Act, and (2) Playboy has met the prerequisites for issuance of an injunction showing actual success on the merits of its claims and irreparable harm. 15 U.S.C. § 1116; Pitbull Prods., Inc. v. Universal Netmedia, Inc., No. 07-cv-1784, 2007 WL 3287368, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2007) (internal quotation omitted); see also Gucci Am., Inc. v. Tyrrell-Miller, 678 F. Supp. 2d 117, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting Gucci Am., Inc. v.Duty Free Apparel, Inc., 286 F. Supp. 284, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Playboy’s Motion for Default Judgment and Related Relief is GRANTED; 2. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), default judgment is hereby entered against each Defendant for each and all of the Counts alleged in Playboy’s Complaint, namely: a. Trademark Counterfeiting, in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114) (“Count 1”); b. Trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition, in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) (“Count 2”); and c. Trademark infringement and unfair competition, in violation of New York common law (“Count 3”) 3. The foregoing violations of Playboy’s rights, and federal and state law, were willful; 4. Under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), Playboy is entitled to statutory damages of $ 30,000 per registered trademark, for a total damages award of $1,050,000 jointly and severally against the Defendants. 5. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, each Defendant, and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those in active concert or participation with them, who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise (“Restrained Parties”), are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from, directly or indirectly, anywhere in the world: a. Using or counterfeiting the Playboy Marks!, and/or common law rights to the

' As defined as United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) registration numbers 1393914 (PLAYBOY word mark); 1886578 (PLAYBOY word mark); 3187723 (PLAYBOY word mark); 3500652 (PLAYBOY word mark); 5945210 (PLAYBOY word mark); 5932223 (PLAYBOY word mark); 676726 (PLAYBOY word mark); 0600018 (PLAYBOY word mark); 0791734 (PLAYBOY word mark); 2632523 (PLAYBOY word mark); 2605118 (PLAYBOY word mark); 2412958 (PLAYBOY word mark); 5210800 (PLAYBOY word mark); 1320822 (PLAYBOY word mark); 4280121 (PLAYBOY word mark); 5638682 (PLAYBOY word mark); 6042869 (PLAYBOY word mark); 5991809 (PLAYBOY word mark); 4973564 (PLAYBOY word mark); 2107294 (PLAYBOY word mark); 3959511 (PLAYBOY word mark); 4280122 6059387 2839937 3012203 4813069 □□□ 1918754 2867439 2177521 □□□ 2107307 2666917 □□□ 791333 □□□ 5482507 6185419 ); and 3963330 ), and their associated common law rights.

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

Related

United States v. Carignan
286 F. Supp. 284 (D. Massachusetts, 1967)
GUCCI AMERICA, INC. v. Tyrrell-Miller
678 F. Supp. 2d 117 (S.D. New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. www.Playboyrabbitars.app, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/playboy-enterprises-international-inc-v-wwwplayboyrabbitarsapp-nysd-2022.