1 2 3
7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 TEE TURTLE, LLC Case No.: 2:21-CV-03572-CBM-(Ex)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S v. 13 MOTION FOR DEFAULT ABMASK, et al., JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT 14 INJUNCTION [51] Defendants. 15
16 17 The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and 18 Permanent Injunction. (Dkt. No. 51 (the “Motion”).) Having considered the 19 Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, the 20 Declaration of J. Michael Keyes, and the pleadings, files, and records of this 21 matter, the Court GRANTS the Motion and finds as follows: 22 1. The Verified Complaint, filed on April 27, 2021, asserts four causes 23 of action: (1) Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.; (2) Unfair 24 Competition, Lanham Act § 43, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) State Statutory Unfair 25 Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; and (4) Unfair Competition 26 under California Common Law. (Dkt. No. 1.) 27 2. On April 29, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application 28 for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Order to Show Cause Why a 1 Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (“OSC”) upon finding Plaintiff 2 demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the 3 absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in its favor, and an 4 injunction is in the public interest. (See Dkt. No. 15 (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. 5 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).) 6 3. On April 29, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application 7 for an Order Granting Leave for Alternative Service by Electronic Means. (Dkt. 8 No. 17.) 9 4. Plaintiff filed a proof of service reflecting electronic service of the 10 Verified Complaint and Summons on all Defendants other than Defendant 11 Happylifes on May 3, 2021, and electronic service on Defendant Happylifes on 12 May 5, 2021, in the manner approved by the Court in its Order Granting Leave for 13 Alternative Service by Electronic Means. (Dkt. No. 32; see also Dkt. No. 31-1.) 14 5. The Court issued a preliminary injunction against Defendants on May 15 6, 2021. (Dkt. No. 23.) 16 6. The Clerk entered default as to Complaint against all Defendants on 17 June 22, 2021. (Dkt. Nos. 36-44.) 18 7. Defendants were served with notice of the Motion on October 5, 19 2021 (Keyes Decl. ¶ 28). 20 8. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Defendants’ opposition to the Motion 21 was due on October 19, 2021 based on the November 9, 2021 noticed hearing 22 date, but no opposition was filed by Defendants and Defendants did not appear at 23 the hearing. 24 9. Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendants are not infants or incompetent 25 persons or in military services or otherwise exempted under the Soldier’s and 26 Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 (Keyes Decl. ¶ 29). 27 10. The Court finds the statutory damages requested by Plaintiff pursuant 28 to the Copyright Act in the amount of $40,000.00 against each of the six 1 defendants (Allanhu, Bestdeals, Besthot2020, Earlybirdno1 Co. Ltd., Hot Wind, 2 and Promotionspace) who have not complied with the Court’s preliminary 3 injunction order as of September 23, 2021 (hereinafter, the “Non-Complying 4 Defaulting Defendants”) and $25,000.00 against each of the remaining defendants 5 (Abmask, Ast523, Babyeveryday, Babyfashionwedding, Beautydesign, 6 Besthair2021, Bestoffers, Beststore2021, Cheapgoodfuns Co., Ltd., Chicmissday, 7 Cinderelladress, Creative 2, Cwmsports, DHGate Boutiques Store, Dresssave, 8 Fidget Toys, Googsports, Hangzhou Boyuan Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., 9 Happylifes, Homehome9, Jack6666, Jspet, Kidswonder, Kn95 Facemask, 10 Letsports, Misshowdress, Ningbo Jeeweex Enterprise, One-stopos, Shanhai2008 11 (HK) International Trading Limited, Shantou Hoya Network Technology Co., 12 Ltd., Shenzhen Dream Co., Ltd., Springwedding Factory, Triple_s_sneakers, 13 Tongxiang Indus Hin Yue Zhendong Sweater Factory, Wholesalefactory, 14 Wristwatches(HK) International Trading Co., Ltd., Wusy_store, and Zi527) who 15 have complied with the Court’s preliminary injunction order (hereinafter, 16 “Complying Defaulting Defendants”), are within the permissible range of 17 statutory damages permitted under the Copyright Act. See STJ Enter. Inc. v. H 18 Grp. Intl, Inc., 2020 WL 4286875, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2020); Star Fabrics, 19 Inc. v. Wet Seal, Inc., 2015 WL 12746712, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015). 20 11. The Court finds the factors in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471- 21 72 (9th Cir. 1986), weigh in favor of granting the Motion for Default Judgment. 22 12. The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of 23 irreparable harm pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) because Plaintiff states a claim 24 for trade dress infringement and has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the 25 merits of its trade dress infringement claim. Defendants have not appeared and 26 therefore present no evidence rebutting the presumption of irreparable harm. 27 Moreover, Plaintiff submits evidence that it has been harmed by the loss of 28 goodwill, damage to its reputation, and the inability to execute deals with large 1 retailers based on Defendants selling the infringing products, it is harmed each 2 time Defendants sell the infringing products 3 13. Plaintiff offers evidence demonstrating the Non-Complying 4 Defaulting Defendants have continued to offer infringing products for sale in 5 violation of the Court’s preliminary injunction order. Therefore, the Court finds 6 monetary damages would not remedy the harm to Plaintiff from Defendants’ 7 continued infringement. 8 14. There is no evidence Defendants will be harmed by an injunction, 9 and any hardship as a result of enjoining Defendants from infringing Plaintiff’s 10 copyrights and trade dress rights is irrelevant in determining whether to issue an 11 injunction. See Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 125 F.3d 824, 829 (9th 12 Cir. 1997); Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Ozwear Connection Pty Ltd., 2014 WL 13 4679001, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2014). Plaintiff, however, submits evidence 14 it will be harmed by the loss of goodwill, damage to its reputation, and the 15 inability to execute deals with large retailers if Defendants are not enjoined from 16 selling the infringing products. 17 15. The public interest is served by upholding rights under the Copyright 18 Act and Lanham Act. See Internet Specialties W., Inc. v. Milon-DiGiorgio 19 Enters., Inc., 559 F.3d 985, 993 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2009); State of Idaho Potato 20 Comm’n v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc., 425 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 2005); 21 Charter Sch. Cap., Inc. v. Charter Asset Mgmt. Fund, LP, 2014 WL 12560776, at 22 *11 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2014). 23 16. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff demonstrates the irreparable 24 injury, inadequate remedy available at law, balance of hardships, and public 25 interest factors weigh in favor of a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. 26 MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3
7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 TEE TURTLE, LLC Case No.: 2:21-CV-03572-CBM-(Ex)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S v. 13 MOTION FOR DEFAULT ABMASK, et al., JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT 14 INJUNCTION [51] Defendants. 15
16 17 The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and 18 Permanent Injunction. (Dkt. No. 51 (the “Motion”).) Having considered the 19 Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, the 20 Declaration of J. Michael Keyes, and the pleadings, files, and records of this 21 matter, the Court GRANTS the Motion and finds as follows: 22 1. The Verified Complaint, filed on April 27, 2021, asserts four causes 23 of action: (1) Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.; (2) Unfair 24 Competition, Lanham Act § 43, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) State Statutory Unfair 25 Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; and (4) Unfair Competition 26 under California Common Law. (Dkt. No. 1.) 27 2. On April 29, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application 28 for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Order to Show Cause Why a 1 Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (“OSC”) upon finding Plaintiff 2 demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the 3 absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in its favor, and an 4 injunction is in the public interest. (See Dkt. No. 15 (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. 5 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).) 6 3. On April 29, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application 7 for an Order Granting Leave for Alternative Service by Electronic Means. (Dkt. 8 No. 17.) 9 4. Plaintiff filed a proof of service reflecting electronic service of the 10 Verified Complaint and Summons on all Defendants other than Defendant 11 Happylifes on May 3, 2021, and electronic service on Defendant Happylifes on 12 May 5, 2021, in the manner approved by the Court in its Order Granting Leave for 13 Alternative Service by Electronic Means. (Dkt. No. 32; see also Dkt. No. 31-1.) 14 5. The Court issued a preliminary injunction against Defendants on May 15 6, 2021. (Dkt. No. 23.) 16 6. The Clerk entered default as to Complaint against all Defendants on 17 June 22, 2021. (Dkt. Nos. 36-44.) 18 7. Defendants were served with notice of the Motion on October 5, 19 2021 (Keyes Decl. ¶ 28). 20 8. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Defendants’ opposition to the Motion 21 was due on October 19, 2021 based on the November 9, 2021 noticed hearing 22 date, but no opposition was filed by Defendants and Defendants did not appear at 23 the hearing. 24 9. Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendants are not infants or incompetent 25 persons or in military services or otherwise exempted under the Soldier’s and 26 Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 (Keyes Decl. ¶ 29). 27 10. The Court finds the statutory damages requested by Plaintiff pursuant 28 to the Copyright Act in the amount of $40,000.00 against each of the six 1 defendants (Allanhu, Bestdeals, Besthot2020, Earlybirdno1 Co. Ltd., Hot Wind, 2 and Promotionspace) who have not complied with the Court’s preliminary 3 injunction order as of September 23, 2021 (hereinafter, the “Non-Complying 4 Defaulting Defendants”) and $25,000.00 against each of the remaining defendants 5 (Abmask, Ast523, Babyeveryday, Babyfashionwedding, Beautydesign, 6 Besthair2021, Bestoffers, Beststore2021, Cheapgoodfuns Co., Ltd., Chicmissday, 7 Cinderelladress, Creative 2, Cwmsports, DHGate Boutiques Store, Dresssave, 8 Fidget Toys, Googsports, Hangzhou Boyuan Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., 9 Happylifes, Homehome9, Jack6666, Jspet, Kidswonder, Kn95 Facemask, 10 Letsports, Misshowdress, Ningbo Jeeweex Enterprise, One-stopos, Shanhai2008 11 (HK) International Trading Limited, Shantou Hoya Network Technology Co., 12 Ltd., Shenzhen Dream Co., Ltd., Springwedding Factory, Triple_s_sneakers, 13 Tongxiang Indus Hin Yue Zhendong Sweater Factory, Wholesalefactory, 14 Wristwatches(HK) International Trading Co., Ltd., Wusy_store, and Zi527) who 15 have complied with the Court’s preliminary injunction order (hereinafter, 16 “Complying Defaulting Defendants”), are within the permissible range of 17 statutory damages permitted under the Copyright Act. See STJ Enter. Inc. v. H 18 Grp. Intl, Inc., 2020 WL 4286875, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2020); Star Fabrics, 19 Inc. v. Wet Seal, Inc., 2015 WL 12746712, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015). 20 11. The Court finds the factors in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471- 21 72 (9th Cir. 1986), weigh in favor of granting the Motion for Default Judgment. 22 12. The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of 23 irreparable harm pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) because Plaintiff states a claim 24 for trade dress infringement and has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the 25 merits of its trade dress infringement claim. Defendants have not appeared and 26 therefore present no evidence rebutting the presumption of irreparable harm. 27 Moreover, Plaintiff submits evidence that it has been harmed by the loss of 28 goodwill, damage to its reputation, and the inability to execute deals with large 1 retailers based on Defendants selling the infringing products, it is harmed each 2 time Defendants sell the infringing products 3 13. Plaintiff offers evidence demonstrating the Non-Complying 4 Defaulting Defendants have continued to offer infringing products for sale in 5 violation of the Court’s preliminary injunction order. Therefore, the Court finds 6 monetary damages would not remedy the harm to Plaintiff from Defendants’ 7 continued infringement. 8 14. There is no evidence Defendants will be harmed by an injunction, 9 and any hardship as a result of enjoining Defendants from infringing Plaintiff’s 10 copyrights and trade dress rights is irrelevant in determining whether to issue an 11 injunction. See Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 125 F.3d 824, 829 (9th 12 Cir. 1997); Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Ozwear Connection Pty Ltd., 2014 WL 13 4679001, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2014). Plaintiff, however, submits evidence 14 it will be harmed by the loss of goodwill, damage to its reputation, and the 15 inability to execute deals with large retailers if Defendants are not enjoined from 16 selling the infringing products. 17 15. The public interest is served by upholding rights under the Copyright 18 Act and Lanham Act. See Internet Specialties W., Inc. v. Milon-DiGiorgio 19 Enters., Inc., 559 F.3d 985, 993 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2009); State of Idaho Potato 20 Comm’n v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc., 425 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 2005); 21 Charter Sch. Cap., Inc. v. Charter Asset Mgmt. Fund, LP, 2014 WL 12560776, at 22 *11 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2014). 23 16. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff demonstrates the irreparable 24 injury, inadequate remedy available at law, balance of hardships, and public 25 interest factors weigh in favor of a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. 26 MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 27 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment 28 and Permanent Injunction. Judgment shall be entered consistent herewith in the 1 amount of $40,000.00 against each of the Non-Complying Defaulting Defendants 2 and $25,000.00 against each of the Complying Defaulting Defendants. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 SIGNED this 17th day of November, 2021 at 11:26 a.m. 6
8 CONSUELO B. MARSHALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 CC: FISCAL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28