Michael Kors, L.L.C. v. MKP Fashion, Inc.

Background

Michael Kors, L.L.C. brought this trademark-infringement lawsuit against MKP Fashion, Inc. The opinion states that Michael Kors owns recognized registered trademarks associated with clothing and accessories, and that MKP Fashion allegedly registered competing marks with the Patent and Trademark Office and manufactured competing products using those marks. Michael Kors also filed proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board seeking cancellation of MKP Fashion’s marks; those proceedings were suspended while this lawsuit is pending.

The Clerk entered a Certificate of Default on May 30, 2025. The court explained that MKP Fashion’s California counsel had taken steps to respond, including seeking permission to appear in the case and filing a motion to dismiss on May 30. The court concluded that, under these circumstances, this was not an appropriate case for a default judgment and stated that there was “NO DEFAULT.”

Rulings on the Open Motions

The court ruled on four motions:

- MKP Fashion’s motion to set aside the Clerk’s Certificate of Default was granted. The Certificate of Default at ECF No. 33 was stricken from the record. - Michael Kors’s cross-motion for entry of a default judgment was denied. - Michael Kors’s cross-motion to strike MKP Fashion’s motion to dismiss was denied. - MKP Fashion’s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. The court stated that the motion lacked merit and directed readers to Michael Kors’s brief for the reasons supporting that ruling, rather than providing a lengthy independent discussion.

Counsel and Citations

The court also reviewed concerns raised by Michael Kors about citations in MKP Fashion’s reply briefs. The court found that several cited cases did not contain the quoted language attributed to them, which suggested possible use of artificial intelligence without checking the cited sources. The court also found that some other quotations and citations were accurate or reasonably accurate paraphrases. It stated that the legal principles involved were well established and that the record did not show an effort to mislead the court.

Judge McMahon reminded MKP Fashion’s attorney, Clark Anthony Braunstein, that he appeared by the court’s permission and was responsible, along with his law firm, for the actions of attorneys employed by the firm in connection with the matter. The court did not revoke his permission to appear or require him to explain why it should not be revoked.

Conclusion and Next Step

The court directed the Clerk to remove the four motions from the list of open motions, noting that all except the motion to set aside the Certificate of Default had been denied. The parties were given ten business days to provide a discovery schedule.