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.

Otter Products LLC v. Ace Colors Fashion, Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 15, 2014

OTTER PRODUCTS LLC TREEFROG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. d/b/a LIFEPROOF, Plaintiffs,
v.
ACE COLORS FASHION, INC.; ELECTRONICOS; SHAYNA'S CELL PHONE ACCESSORIES; VANESSA ACCESSORIES; DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT ACE COLORS FASHION, INC. [30]

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Otter Products, LLC ("OtterBox") and Treefrog Developments, Inc. ("LifeProof") discovered that Defendant Ace Colors Fashion was selling goods bearing Plaintiffs' registered trademarks without their authorization. Plaintiffs filed suit. After being served with process, Ace Colors Fashion failed to answer or otherwise respond. The Clerk of Court accordingly entered default, and Plaintiffs moved for default judgment. After considering the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, the Court GRANTS the Application for Default Judgment and awards OtterBox and LifeProof a total of $35, 000.00 in statutory damages along with a permanent injunction against Ace Colors Fashion.[1]

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Founded in 1998, OtterBox is a Colorado limited-liability company with its principal place of business in Colorado. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 14.) OtterBox is a leading retailer of protective cases, peripherals, and accessories for electronic devices and computers. ( Id. ¶ 15.) The company makes protective carrying cases for a wide variety of electronic products, including cell phones and tablet computers. ( Id. ¶ 16.) OtterBox has earned several local and national consumer awards and has been featured in media reports about consumer electronics products. ( Id. ¶¶ 18-19.)

OtterBox owns federally registered and common-law trademarks, including those listed in Figure 1. ( Id. ¶ 20.) It has spent significant resources developing its products and marketing them in print and Internet advertising. ( Id. ¶¶ 21-22.)

Figure 1

Treefrog Developments, Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business as LifeProof. ( Id. ¶ 2.) LifeProof is a designer, manufacturer, distributor, and seller of all-protective cases and related accessories for mobile devices. ( Id. ¶ 23.) Its products provide protection against water, dirt, snow, and shock. ( Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) The company has spent substantial time, money, and effort developing consumer recognition and awareness of the LifeProof brand, including through national and international advertising. ( Id. ¶ 25.) LifeProof is the exclusive owner federal trademark Registration No. 4, 057, 201 for "LIFEPROOF." ( Id. ¶ 26.)

On October 17, 2013, Plaintiffs' investigator visited Defendant Ace Colors Fashion at 1001 Maple Avenue, Suite 107, Los Angeles, California 90015. (Perez Decl. ¶ 2.) The investigator inquired about LifeProof cases for an iPhone 5, and a store associate retrieved five samples from the display wall. (Perez Decl. Ex. 1.) The investigator also observed six OtterBox Defender Series cases for the iPhone 5 on display next to the LifeProof cases. ( Id. ) He purchased one of each case for $35.00 apiece. ( Id.; see also Ex. 2 (depicting photographs of the purchased cases).) Plaintiffs inspected the products and determined that they were not authentic. (Compl. ¶ 13.)

On January 7, 2014, OtterBox and LifeProof filed suit against, among others, Ace Colors Fashion alleging eight federal and state trademark-infringement related claims. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs served Ace Colors Fashion on January 20, 2014. (ECF No. 10.) Hearing no response from Defendant, the Clerk of Court entered default on March 14, 2014, per Plaintiffs' request. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiffs thereafter moved for entry of default judgment. That Application is now before the Court for decision.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) authorizes a district court to grant default judgment after the Clerk enters default under Rule 55(a). Local Rule 55-1 requires that the movant submit a declaration establishing (1) when and against which party default was entered; (2) identification of the pleading to which default was entered; (3) whether the defaulting party is a minor, incompetent person, or active servicemember; and (4) that the defaulting party was properly served with notice.

A district court has discretion whether to enter default judgment. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Upon default, the defendant's liability generally is conclusively established, and the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true. Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-19 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)).

In exercising its discretion, a court must consider several factors, including (1) the possibility of prejudice to plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the defendant's default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules ...


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.