The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Smoak United States District Judge
Before me is Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 79) against Defendant Steve Jarvis (Jarvis"). Defendant Jarvis, against whom default judgment is sought, has not opposed the motion.
1. On February 2, 2011, Slep-Tone commenced this action against Defendant Jarvis. (Doc. 1).
2. On February 3, 2011, the Clerk issued a summons directed Defendant Jarvis. (Doc. 7). Service of process was effected upon the Defendant Jarvis on March 31, 2011. (Doc. 20). Defendant Jarvis failed to file a timely answer or other response to the Complaint, and default was entered as to him on June 8, 2011. (Doc. 44).
3. Slep-Tone is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,923,448, for SOUND CHOICE®, and of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,000,725, for a display trademark SOUND CHOICE & Design® ("the Marks").
4. Defendant Jarvis has used a reproduction, counterfeit, or copy of the Marks in connection with his providing karaoke services, by displaying that reproduction, counterfeit, or copy during the provision of his services.
5. Slep-Tone has elected to receive an award of statutory damages.
1. Because of his default in this matter, Defendant Jarvis is deemed to have admitted those facts alleged in the Complaint, that are material to Slep-Tone's claims against him. See Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987).
2. By using counterfeit materials bearing the Marks to put on karaoke shows and by displaying the Marks during the course of those shows, the Defendant Jarvis has violated Section 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, in that the display of Slep-Tone's marks constitutes a false designation of the origin of those materials.
3. Defendant Jarvis' acts further constitute a per se violation of FDUTPA. See TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2009)
4. An injunction forbidding the use of all unauthorized copies of karaoke tracks, is an appropriate remedy for the federal unfair competition and FDUTPA violations and would be appropriate to protect the rights of the Plaintiff, its legitimate downstream customers, and the public at large.
5. The Trademark Act permits the destruction of infringing articles as an additional remedy for trademark ...