MaidPro Franchise, LLC v. City Maid Pro, Inc.

Background

MaidPro Franchise, LLC sued City Maid Pro, Inc. for alleged violations of federal and Massachusetts trademark laws. MaidPro owns rights in the MAIDPRO mark and franchises house-cleaning businesses using that mark. It alleged that City Maid Pro offered similar cleaning services under the name “City Maid Pro” and through the domain name www.citymaidpro.com without authorization.

City Maid Pro was served through the New York Secretary of State but never filed a response. The Clerk entered default on December 6, 2023. A default means that a defendant failed to respond or otherwise defend the case. The court therefore accepted the complaint’s well-supported factual allegations as true, while still requiring MaidPro to establish legal liability.

MaidPro asserted seven claims. Counts One and Three were federal claims under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and false designation of origin. Count Four alleged cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Counts Two, Five, Six, and Seven asserted Massachusetts claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

Liability

The court held that MaidPro established liability on Counts One and Three. Its MAIDPRO mark was registered and therefore protected. Applying the multi-factor test used to evaluate likely consumer confusion, the court found that the mark was strong, “MAIDPRO” and “City Maid Pro” were nearly identical, and City Maid Pro offered virtually the same services as MaidPro and its franchisees. The court also found that City Maid Pro’s continued use after receiving three cease-and-desist letters supported an inference of bad faith. The court concluded that consumers were likely to be confused about the source or sponsorship of City Maid Pro’s services.

The court also held that City Maid Pro was liable on Count Four, the cybersquatting claim. The MAIDPRO mark was distinctive, the citymaidpro.com domain name was confusingly similar to it, and the allegations established bad-faith intent. The court further held that MaidPro established liability on the four Massachusetts claims because the relevant legal standards were materially the same as the federal trademark standards the court had already applied.

Relief

MaidPro requested a permanent injunction and $20,000 in statutory damages for the cybersquatting claim, along with attorney’s fees, costs, and post-judgment interest.

The court found that a permanent injunction was warranted and stated that it would restrain City Maid Pro from using the MAIDPRO mark, including in a domain name. The court awarded $10,000 in statutory damages rather than the requested $20,000. It reasoned that the case involved one mark and that a further doubling of the statutory minimum was not warranted. The court also found MaidPro entitled to $619.50 in costs and to post-judgment interest.

The court declined to award attorney’s fees. MaidPro had not provided contemporaneous records showing each attorney’s hours and work, and the court found that the case was not an “exceptional” case warranting fees under the Lanham Act. The court stated that City Maid Pro’s default alone did not make the case exceptional.

Default-Judgment Procedure and Order

The court found that MaidPro had not complied with Local Civil Rule 55.2(b). That rule required MaidPro to mail the default-judgment motion papers to City Maid Pro and file proof of mailing, along with additional information if the mailing was returned.

The court directed MaidPro to comply with the rule and file proof of compliance. After doing so, MaidPro may file a letter motion for the relief described in the decision. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at Docket No. 14. The order therefore resolved the legal issues and described the relief MaidPro was entitled to seek, but required the specified procedural step before MaidPro could pursue that relief by letter motion.