Pluginz Keychains LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

S.D. Florida

Pluginz Keychains LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

DecidedJune 3, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-20609

StatusUnknown

This text of Pluginz Keychains LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Pluginz Keychains LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pluginz Keychains LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, (S.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 25-cv-20609-BLOOM/Elfenbein

PLUGINZ KEYCHAINS LLC AND MIKE STRICKLIN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

Defendants. _____________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Pluginz Keychains LLC and Mike Stricklin (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgement (“Motion”), ECF No. [66], filed on May 28, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default on April 22, 2025, against the Defendants identified in the attached Schedule A (“Defaulting Defendants”)1. ECF No. [47]. A Clerk’s Default was entered against Defaulting Defendants on April 28, 2025, ECF No. [48], as Defaulting Defendants failed to appear, answer, or otherwise timely respond to the Complaint, despite having been served. Plaintiffs now seek entry of final default judgment against Defaulting

1 The attached Schedule A has been revised to remove several Defendants that were included on the Schedule A to Plaintiffs’ Request for Clerk’s Entry of Default, ECF No. [47], for whom Plaintiffs initially intended to seek default against but no longer intend to. Accordingly, Plaintiffs state they are not seeking default against Defendants Likee Store (DOE 22), M + L (DOE 23), linhu2594 (DOE 50), My Best French Shop (DOE 51), AIMIYU (DOE 59), Bole keychain (DOE 60), woofield (DOE 62), sunsen (DOE 69), TGNB (DOE 70), Beyond technology Co. ltd (DOE 75), dongyuheng (DOE 77), EQWIROUWQEIOR (DOE 78), Fattazi (DOE 80), Gealach (DOE 83), guqishangmao (DOE 84), Huang zhong wen Home Store (DOE 86), kuizhilinshangmao (DOE 89), Li shun jin (DOE 91), Midewhik (DOE 95), panzanmaoyi02 (DOE 96), pobucishangmao (DOE 97), shaotellme shop (DOE 98), SHUJIN Co.Ltd (DOE 100), SHUYING Co.Ltd (DOE 101), Tanyoung (DOE 104), tongmuxue (DOE 105), ViLaViDe LLC (DOE 106). Defendants. The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied without prejudice. In addition to a permanent injunction “enjoin[ing] Defaulting Defendants from continuing

to infringe any of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights,” Plaintiffs seek damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114 for Trademark Counterfeiting and Infringement (Count I) and 35 U.S.C. § 271 for Design Patent Infringement (Count II). ECF Nos. [1] at 12-15, [66] at 15-23. Regarding Count I, statutory damages may range from a minimum of $1,000 to a maximum of $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). Alternatively, the Court may impose damages of “not more than $2,000,000” if it “finds that the use of the counterfeit mark was willful . . . as the [C]ourt considers just.” Id. § 1117(c)(2). Plaintiffs argue “this Court should award a significant amount of statutory damages under the Lanham Act to ensure Defaulting Defendants do not continue their intentional and willful counterfeiting activities.” ECF No. [66] at 17. However, it is unclear why

Plaintiffs seek $200,000 in damages under Count I for some of the Defaulting Defendants, but not others. See ECF No. [66-11]. Plaintiffs do not provide any explanation as to why some Defaulting Defendants should be ordered to pay $200,000 in damages for Count I, but others should not be ordered to pay any damages at all. Id. Regarding Count II, 35 U.S.C. § 289 states infringers of a design patent “shall be liable to the owner [of the patent] to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250[.]” 35 U.S.C. § 289. Plaintiffs state they “seek lost profits in connection with eighty-four (84) Defaulting Defendants[,]” ECF No. [66] at 19 & n.3, and provide “[a] table identifying the calculated damages for each Defaulting Defendant for infringement of Plaintiffs’ Design Patent[.]” See ECF No. [66- 11]. However, in lieu of determining the amount of actual lost profits from Defaulting Defendants’ infringement, Plaintiffs apparently “rel[y] on the reported entire revenue amount for the Defaulting Defendant.” ECF No. [66] at 23 n.4. Plaintiffs provide no binding case law to indicate that such an extraordinary remedy would be appropriate where Plaintiffs cannot determine how much of the

Defendant’s profit is derived from infringing profits. Additionally, the chart listing the amount of “lost profits sought” per Defaulting Defendant does not state whether the “lost profits” are “gross profits for a specific infringing product” or “the reported entire revenue amount for the Defaulting Defendant.” Id. Plaintiffs seek an entry of final default judgment against 111 Defaulting Defendants, with total damages for each individual Defendant ranging from $250.00 to $213,272.56. ECF No. [66- 13] at 7-13. As Plaintiffs note, “[t]he Court has wide discretion to set an amount of statutory damages.” ECF No. [66] at 16. However, there must be a sufficient legal and factual basis for the Court to determine what remedies are appropriate. Anheuser Busch, Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2003) (“A court has an obligation to assure that there is a legitimate basis for any

damage award it enters[.]”). Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient facts for the Court to determine the amount of damages that should be awarded for each Defaulting Defendant. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion, ECF No. [66] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may file a renewed Motion for Default Final Judgment by June 17, 2025. Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal without prejudice as to the Defaulting Defendants. See ECF No. [49]. Case No. 25-cv-20609-BLOOM/Elfenbein

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on June 3, 2025.

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: Counsel of record

Guy Shimron 9 Golomb st Kefar Sava 4435709 Israel

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