Renwick Hospitality Group LLC v. Lulla’s NYC LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-03049
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Renwick Hospitality Group v. Lulla’s NYC, Judge Abrams required more briefing and gave the absent defendant another chance before deciding default judgment.
Renwick Hospitality Group LLC must serve the order and submit additional briefing. Lulla’s NYC LLC receives another opportunity to appear and respond before the court decides Renwick’s motion for default judgment.
What happened
Renwick Hospitality Group LLC sued Lulla’s NYC LLC on five claims involving alleged trademark and unfair-competition violations. Lulla’s was served but did not answer or appear, so Renwick obtained a certificate of default and asked the court to enter judgment without a trial.
The court did not decide whether Renwick was entitled to default judgment. Instead, it ordered Renwick to serve the order and supporting papers on Lulla’s by September 5, 2025, and to submit additional briefing addressing whether Lulla’s name, advertising, social media, website, and physical appearance were likely to confuse customers. The court also gave Lulla’s another opportunity to appear at a September 19, 2025 video conference and said Lulla’s could respond by September 12, 2025.
Judge Ronnie Abrams explained that the court must first determine whether Renwick’s allegations, treated as true because of the default, establish liability as a matter of law. The order therefore postponed a decision on default judgment and required further submissions.
The detailed version
- Renwick Hospitality Group LLC v. Lulla’s NYC LLC · No. 1:25-cv-03049
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 15, 2025
Background
Renwick Hospitality Group LLC filed this action on April 13, 2025. Lulla’s NYC LLC was served on May 5, 2025, but did not answer or appear. Renwick obtained a certificate of default on June 3, 2025, and moved for default judgment on June 16, 2025. A default judgment is a judgment entered when a defendant does not defend the case, but the court must still determine whether the complaint establishes legal liability.
The court held a hearing on August 22, 2025, to give Lulla’s an opportunity to explain why default judgment should not be entered. No one appeared for Lulla’s.
Claims and legal standard
Renwick asserted five claims: unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act, common-law trademark infringement, common-law unfair competition, deceptive practices under New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment.
The court stated that, before entering default judgment, it must be satisfied that Lulla’s liability is established as a matter of law when the complaint’s factual allegations are treated as true. For the Lanham Act unfair-competition claim, Renwick must show that it has a valid mark entitled to protection and that Lulla’s conduct is likely to cause customer confusion. The court identified the Second Circuit’s eight-factor confusion test: the mark’s strength; similarity between the marks; the products’ competitive proximity; actual confusion; the likelihood that Renwick would expand into Lulla’s market; Lulla’s good faith; the quality of Lulla’s products; and the sophistication of purchasers.
Court’s action
The court did not grant or deny Renwick’s motion for default judgment. It gave Lulla’s one more opportunity to appear at a rescheduled Microsoft Teams conference on September 19, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. The court ordered Renwick to serve the order to show cause and all papers supporting its motion on Lulla’s by September 5, 2025, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, as well as through any known email or physical address.
The court also ordered Renwick to submit additional briefing by September 5, 2025. That briefing must address the likelihood of confusion arising from Lulla’s use of the name “Lulla’s NYC” and other similarities between the businesses’ marks, advertisements, social-media presence, websites, and physical appearances. The court specifically requested discussion of different fonts, whether restaurants in different boroughs are competitively proximate, how social-media presence should be considered, whether different culinary offerings affect confusion, and how a restaurant’s physical appearance affects confusion.
Lulla’s was permitted to respond by September 12, 2025. The order therefore left the default-judgment motion unresolved and required additional briefing and an additional opportunity for Lulla’s to participate.
Disposition
The court ordered additional service and briefing and scheduled another opportunity for Lulla’s to appear. It did not enter default judgment in this order.
Judge
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order, dated August 22, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.