Astral IP Enterprise LTD v. Care20 Fertility Calendar Cycle Tracker

Background

Astral asserted four claims against Care20: trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, unfair competition under California law, and copyright infringement under the Copyright Act. The dispute concerned icons used with period-tracking mobile applications available on Google Play.

Astral alleged that it owned a federally registered trademark for an icon and a copyright under Canadian law for color and black-and-white versions of the icon. Care20 released one period-tracking application in December 2022 and another in July 2023, using two different icons. Astral sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice, after which Google removed Care20’s first application. Care20 submitted a counter-notice and released its second application the same day Astral received notice of the counter-notice.

The court permitted Astral to serve Care20 by email and also required service at a physical address in Pakistan that Care20 had provided in its counter-notice. Astral filed proof that it served the summons, complaint, and operative amended complaint at the specified email addresses and physical address. Care20 did not answer, appear at the default-judgment hearing, or otherwise defend the action.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court first found that service of process was sufficient. It then considered whether it had personal jurisdiction over Care20, which appeared to be based in Pakistan. Astral relied on specific jurisdiction rather than general jurisdiction.

The court focused on Care20’s counter-notice under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3). That counter-notice stated that Care20 consented to the jurisdiction of the federal district court in the district where it resided, or, if its address was outside the United States, the Northern District of California, and that it would accept service of process. The court found this consent broad enough to cover Astral’s copyright claim. Because all of Astral’s claims arose from the same underlying use of the two icons, the court also found personal jurisdiction over the remaining claims based on related-claim jurisdiction.

Default Judgment

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, a court may enter default judgment after the clerk has entered a party’s default. Well-pleaded allegations concerning liability are generally treated as true after default, but damages are not automatically established. The court applied the factors identified in Eitel v. McCool, including prejudice, the strength and sufficiency of the claims, the amount at stake, the possibility of disputed facts, excusable neglect, and the preference for decisions on the merits.

The court found that many factors favored default judgment. Astral would likely be prejudiced without relief, Care20 had not suggested a dispute over material facts, and there was no indication that its default resulted from excusable neglect. Although decisions on the merits are generally preferred, Care20’s decision not to defend made such a decision impractical. Astral sought only injunctive relief, not money damages.

Trademark Claim

The court analyzed Astral’s trademark-infringement claim as the basis for injunctive relief. To establish that claim, Astral had to show a protectable ownership interest in the mark and a likelihood that Care20’s use would cause consumer confusion.

The court found the ownership element satisfied because Astral alleged that it currently owned the federally registered trademark, and nothing in the record suggested otherwise. Federal registration provided initial evidence of the mark’s validity and a strong presumption that it was protectable.

The court found that Care20’s first icon was very close to, or possibly identical to, Astral’s trademark and was used for the same type of period-tracking mobile application. The court also found that Care20’s second icon was likely to cause consumer confusion, although that conclusion was closer. The second icon differed in some respects, including the number and shape of the flower petals and the absence of shading and center details, but it used a similar flower design and nearly identical pink, white, and yellow colors. The court concluded that Astral had stated a valid trademark-infringement claim.

Because the trademark claim supported the requested relief, the court did not address whether Astral’s other legal claims were viable.

Relief and Disposition

The court granted Astral’s motion for default judgment. It modified Astral’s proposed injunction to state that Care20; its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and other persons acting together with those identified parties would be permanently enjoined and restrained from the prohibited conduct. The court eliminated a third paragraph of Astral’s proposed order and required an additional sentence stating that the order would bind only persons identified in the injunction who received actual notice by personal service or otherwise.

Astral was directed to promptly file a modified proposed order, after which the court would sign it and enter final judgment in Astral’s favor. The order disposed of Docket No. 22.