Yeti Coolers, LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided December 29, 2021·No. 0:21-cv-62008·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 21-cv-62008-BLOOM/Valle

YETI COOLERS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESS ENTITIES, AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

Defendants. _______________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff YETI Coolers, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against Defendants, ECF No. [40] (“Motion”), filed on December 17, 2021. A Clerk’s Default was entered against Defendants on November 19, 2021, ECF No. [38], as Defendants failed to appear, answer, or otherwise plead to the Amended Complaint, ECF No. [25], despite having been served. See ECF No. [33]. The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff sued Defendants for trademark counterfeiting and infringement under § 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; false designation of origin under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); cybersquatting under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); common-law unfair competition; and common law trademark infringement. The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants are promoting, advertising, distributing, offering for sale and selling goods bearing and/or using counterfeits and confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiff’s registered trademarks within the Southern District of Florida by operating fully interactive commercial Internet websites and a supporting domain under the domain names set forth on Schedule “A” attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment (the “Subject Domain Names”). See ECF No. [40], at 19–34.

Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants’ unlawful activities have caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiff because Defendants have (1) deprived Plaintiff of its rights to determine the manner in which its trademarks are presented to the public through merchandising; (2) defrauded the public into thinking Defendants’ goods are goods authorized by Plaintiff; (3) deceived the public as to Plaintiff’s association with Defendants’ goods and the websites that market and sell the goods; and (4) wrongfully traded and capitalized on Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill, as well as the commercial value of Plaintiff’s trademarks. In its Motion, Plaintiff seeks the entry of default final judgment against Defendants1 in an action alleging trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false designation of origin,

cybersquatting, common law unfair competition, and common law trademark infringement. Plaintiff further requests that the Court (1) enjoin Defendants from producing or selling goods that infringe its trademarks; (2) cancel, or at Plaintiff’s election, transfer the domain names at issue to Plaintiff; (3) assign all rights, title and interest to the Subject Domain Names to Plaintiff and permanently delist or deindex the domain names from any Internet search engines, and (4) award statutory damages. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), the Court is authorized to enter a final judgment of default against a party who has failed to plead in response to a complaint. “[A]

1 Defendants are the Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule “A” of Plaintiff’s Motion, and Schedule “A” of this Order. See ECF No. [40] at 19–34. Case No. 21-cv-62008-BLOOM/Valle

defendant’s default does not in itself warrant the court entering a default judgment.” DirecTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1127 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’! Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (Sth Cir. 1975)). Granting a motion for default judgment is within the trial court’s discretion. Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206. Because the defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well pleaded or to admit conclusions of law, the court must first determine whether there is a sufficient basis in the pleading for the judgment to be entered. See id; see also Buchanan vy. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987) (“[L]iability is well-pled in the complaint and is therefore established by the entry of default.”). Upon a review of Plaintiff’s submissions, it appears there is a sufficient basis in the pleading for the default judgment to be entered in favor of Plaintiff. Il. FACTUAL BACKGROUND? Plaintiff is the owner of all rights in and to the following trademarks, which are valid and registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (collectively, the “YETI Marks”):

Trademark Registration Registration Date Class(es) / Good(s) Number

YETI 3,203,869 | January 30,2007 |IC 021 — Portable coolers

TUNDRA 4,083,930 | January 10,2012 |IC 021 — Portable coolers

> The factual background is taken from Plaintiff?’s Amended Complaint, ECF No. [25], Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against Defendants, ECF No. [40], and supporting evidentiary submissions.

ROADIE 4,083,932 | January 10,2012 |IC 021 — Portable Coolers

YETI T ANK 4,818,317 September 22, IC 021 — Portable Coolers 2015

RAMBLER 4,998,897 July 12,2016 021 - Jugs

HOPPER FLIP) 5.171.380 | March 28, 2017 021 — Portable Coolers

HO P PE R 5,232,872 June 27,2017 |IC 021 — Portable coolers

IC 021 - Beverageware; cups; drinking glasses; tumblers for use as drinking vessels; jugs; mugs; temperature-retaining drinking vessels; storage containers for household or domestic use, namely, vacuum RAMB LER 5,233,441 June 27,2017 —|container for hot or cold food and drink; beer growlers; insulated food and drink containers; stainless steel tumblers for use as drinking vessels; stainless steel drinking glasses; stainless steel beverageware; drinking straws.

YETI HOPPER |_ 5.329.935 | November 7, 2017 |IC 021 — Portable coolers

YETI 5,885,556 | October 15,2019 |IC 016 — Lunch bags

HAUL 5,886,316 October 15, 2019 |IC 021 — Non-electric coolers

IC 021 — Insulated lunch boxes; lunch boxes; lunch bags not of D AYTRIP 5,893,053 | October 22, 2019 |paper; insulated lunch bags not of paper; non-electric portable coolers

6,153,620 September 15, |IC 021 — Non-electric portable B AC KFLIP 2020 coolers

FLIP 6,200,636 | November !7. □□□ 921 — portable coolers 2020

IC 021 - Buckets; plastic buckets; industrial buckets; utility buckets; ranger buckets; fishing buckets; household containers for food and beverages; containers for Y E TI 6,211,352 | December 1, 2020 household or kitchen use; plastic portable household cargo containers; portable non-electric water coolers; water dispensers; insulated water dispensers; portable beverage dispenser; handles specially adapted for beverageware See Declaration of Jeni Zuercher, ECF No. [7-1] at 4-5; ECF No. [25-1] (containing Certificates of Registrations for the YETI Marks at issue.) The YETI Marks are used in connection with the

manufacture and distribution of quality goods in the categories identified above.

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

Yeti Coolers, LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, (S.D. Fla. 2021).

Yeti Coolers, LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Yeti Coolers, LLC v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bavaro Palace, S.A. v. Vacation Tours, Inc.
203 F. App'x 252 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006)
McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson
147 F.3d 1301 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc.
261 F.3d 1188 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Smyth
420 F.3d 1225 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co.
321 U.S. 707 (Supreme Court, 1944)
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.
505 U.S. 763 (Supreme Court, 1992)
George B. Buchanan, Jr. v. Hugh E. Bowman, II
820 F.2d 359 (Eleventh Circuit, 1987)
Joseph C. Shields v. John Zuccarini
254 F.3d 476 (Third Circuit, 2001)
Burger King Corp. v. Agad
911 F. Supp. 1499 (S.D. Florida, 1995)
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Otamedia Ltd.
331 F. Supp. 2d 228 (S.D. New York, 2004)
Ford Motor Co. v. Cross
441 F. Supp. 2d 837 (E.D. Michigan, 2006)
DirecTV, Inc. v. Huynh
318 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (M.D. Alabama, 2004)
PetMed Express, Inc. v. MedPets.Com, Inc.
336 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (S.D. Florida, 2004)
Jackson v. Sturkie
255 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (N.D. California, 2003)