Moose Toys Ltd v. Baby&Mommy K-ingdom Toy ~ Store

Background

The five plaintiffs, which the opinion collectively calls the “Moose” business, sell children’s toys, including a line called Scruff-a-Luvs. The plaintiffs hold a federal trademark registration for the Scruff-a-Luvs mark on goods including stuffed and plush toys. They alleged that the defendants listed for sale products closely resembling Scruff-a-Luvs products, sometimes using the same or similar names.

The plaintiffs asserted federal claims for trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, as well as unfair competition under New York common law. The defendants did not respond to the complaint. The court entered default judgment against the defendants who remained in the case and referred damages to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest.

Review of the Report and Recommendation

No party objected to Magistrate Judge Wang’s September 19, 2025 Report and Recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none. The court adopted the Report in its entirety.

CDTOYS Store and DuLa Baby Store

The court upheld personal jurisdiction over CDTOYS Store and DuLa Baby Store. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s power to decide claims against a particular defendant. The record showed that these two defendants accepted payment for allegedly counterfeit products and agreed to ship them to New York. The court concluded that these transactions showed that the defendants purposefully conducted business in New York and that the claims arose from those transactions.

The court also upheld liability for trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and New York common-law unfair competition. It found that the listed products had combinations of colors, shapes, designs, logo placement, and names that were substantially indistinguishable from the plaintiffs’ Scruff-a-Luvs products. Because counterfeit goods inherently cause consumer confusion, the court found the defendants liable for trademark infringement and false designation of origin. It also found the requirements for New York common-law unfair competition satisfied, including bad faith, which the court said is presumed when a defendant uses a counterfeit mark.

The plaintiffs sought statutory damages rather than damages under New York unfair-competition law. The court found that each defendant’s infringement was willful and awarded $50,000 against CDTOYS Store and $50,000 against DuLa Baby Store, for $100,000 total.

Live-loving Store

The court dismissed Live-loving Store with prejudice under the plaintiffs’ voluntary-dismissal notice. The opinion states that Live-loving Store had not filed an answer, motion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment, so the dismissal became effective when the plaintiffs filed the notice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Live-loving Store from the docket.

The Other Thirty-Two Defendants

The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the remaining 32 defendants. The plaintiffs had not shown completed sales, exchanges of funds, or communications with New York customers by those defendants. The court stated that merely accessing the defendants’ websites from New York and presenting checkout pages did not establish a completed transaction or a sufficient effort to serve the New York market.

The court therefore vacated the default judgment as to those 32 defendants, struck the Certificates of Default as to them, and dismissed all claims against them without prejudice. The opinion’s use of “without prejudice” means the dismissal did not itself bar refiling those claims, although the opinion does not address whether any later action would be viable.

Disposition

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Wang’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. CDTOYS Store and DuLa Baby Store were each held liable for $50,000 in statutory damages. Live-loving Store was dismissed with prejudice. The default judgment was vacated, the Certificates of Default were struck, and all claims were dismissed without prejudice as to the other 32 defendants over whom the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Judge George B. Daniels signed the order.