Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chanel, Inc. v. 7Areplica.Ru

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

August 1, 2019

CHANEL, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
7AREPLICA.RU, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT

          BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Chanel, Inc.'s (“Plaintiff”), Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against Defendants, ECF No. [27] (the “Motion”), filed on July 31, 2019. A Clerk's Default, ECF No. [25], was entered against Defendants on July 24, 2019, as Defendants failed to appear, answer, or otherwise plead to the Complaint, ECF No. [1], despite having been served. See ECF No. [20]. 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); common-law unfair competition; and common law trademark infringement. The Complaint alleges that Defendants are promoting, advertising, distributing, offering for sale and selling goods bearing counterfeits and confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiff's registered trademarks within the Southern District of Florida through the fully interactive commercial Internet websites operating under their domain names identified on Schedule “A” attached to Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment (the “Subject Domain Names”), including the URLs identified on Schedule “C” attached to Plaintiff's Motion. See ECF No. [27], at 16-17 and 19-820.

         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 right 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 Defendants[1] in an action alleging trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false designation of origin, 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) disable, or at Plaintiff's election, transfer the domain names at issue to Plaintiff; (3) de-index the corresponding websites' uniform resource locators (“URLs”) from any search engines; (4) assign all rights, title, and interest, to the domain names to Plaintiff and permanently delist or deindex the domain names from any Internet search engines; (5) suspend the e-mail addresses used by Defendants; and (6) 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] 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'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). Granting a motion for default judgment is within the trial court's discretion. See 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 v. 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.

         II. Factual Background [2]

         Plaintiff is the registered owner of the following trademarks which are valid and registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “Chanel Marks”):

Trademark

Registration Number

Registration Date

Classes/Goods

CHANEL

0, 626, 035

May 1, 1956

IC 018 -Women's Handbags

CHANEL

1, 241, 265

June 7, 1983

IC 025 -Suits, Jackets, Skirts, Dresses, Pants, Blouses, Tunics, Sweaters, Cardigans, Coats, Raincoats, Scarves, Shoes and Boots

(Image Omitted)

1, 501, 898

August 30, 1988

IC 006 -Keychains

IC 014 -Costume Jewelry

IC 025 -Blouses, Shoes, Belts, Scarves, Jackets, Men's Ties

IC 026 -Brooches and Buttons for Clothing

CHANEL

1, 733, 051

November 17, 1992

IC 018 -Leather Goods; namely, Handbags, Wallets, Travel Bags, Luggage, Business and Credit Card Cases, Change Purses, Tote Bags, Cosmetic Bags Sold Empty, and Garment Bags for Travel

(Image Omitted)

1, 734, 822

November 24, 1992

IC 018 -Leather Goods; Namely, Handbags, Wallets, Travel Bags, Luggage, Business Card Cases, Change Purses, Tote Bags, and Cosmetic Bags Sold Empty

J12

2, 559, 772

April 9, 2002

IC014 -Timepieces; Namely, Watches, and Parts Thereof

CHANEL

3, 133, 139

August 22, 2006

IC 014 -Jewelry and Watches

(Image Omitted)

4, 074, 269

December 20, 2011

IC 009 -Protective Covers for Portable Electronic Devices, Handheld Digital Devices, Personal Computers and Cell Phones IC 018 -Key Cases

(Image Omitted)

4, 241, 822

November 13, 2012

IC 025 -Clothing; Namely, Coats, Jackets, Dresses, Tops, Blouses, Sweaters, Cardigans, Skirts, Vests, Pants, Jeans, Belts, Swim Wear, Pareos, Beach Cover-Ups, Hats, Sun Visors, Scarves, Shawls, Ties, Gloves, Footwear, Hosiery And Socks

See Declaration of Jennifer Bleys, ECF No. [5-1], at 4; ECF No. [1-2] (containing Certificates of Registrations for the Chanel Marks at issue). The Chanel Marks are used in connection with the manufacture and distribution of high quality luxury goods in the categories identified above. See Declaration of Jennifer Bleys, ECF No. [5-1], at 4-5.

         Defendants, through the various fully interactive, [3] commercial Internet websites and supporting domains operating under their domain names identified on Schedule “A” hereto (the “Subject Domain Names”), including the URLs identified on Schedule “C” to Plaintiff's Motion, have advertised, promoted, offered for sale, and/or sold goods bearing what Plaintiff has determined to be counterfeits, infringements, reproductions, or colorable imitations of the Chanel Marks. See Declaration of Jennifer Bleys, ECF No. [5-1], at 9-11.

         Although each Defendant may not copy and infringe each Chanel Mark for each category of goods protected, Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence showing each Defendant has infringed, at least, one or more of the Chanel Marks.[4] See Declaration of Jennifer Bleys, ECF No. [5-1], at 9-11. Defendants are not now, nor have they ever been, authorized or licensed to use, reproduce, or make counterfeits, reproductions, or colorable imitations of the Chanel Marks. See Declaration of Jennifer Bleys, ECF No. [5-1], at 9-11.

         Plaintiff's representative reviewed and visually inspected the web page captures reflecting various products offered for sale bearing the Chanel Marks via Defendants' Internet websites operating under the Subject Domain Names, and determined the products offered for sale were non-genuine, unauthorized versions of Plaintiff's products. See Declaration of Jennifer Bleys, ECF No. [5-1], at 10-11.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.