SPIN MASTER, LTD. v. ACIPER
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-06949
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Spin Master v. Aciper, Judge Broderick denied Plaintiffs’ default-judgment motion without prejudice, requiring more detail about service and liability.
The ruling affected Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment against the listed non-appearing defendants. It denied that request without prejudice and required Plaintiffs to provide defendant-specific information about service and liability.
What happened
SPIN MASTER, LTD. v. ACIPER involved Plaintiffs’ request for judgment against defendants who had not appeared in the case. The request followed the court’s earlier dismissal of trademark-based claims against Jscout for failure to allege likely consumer confusion.
The court said it lacked enough information to find the non-appearing defendants liable. Plaintiffs had not explained how their complaint supported liability for each defendant, and their proof of electronic service did not identify which defendant received which authorized form of service.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the motion for default judgment without prejudice. He ordered Plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefing by May 16, 2022, addressing service, the factual basis for each defendant’s liability, and consistency with the earlier ruling concerning Jscout.
The detailed version
- SPIN MASTER, LTD. v. ACIPER · No. 1:19-cv-06949
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 28, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs moved for default judgment against the defendants they identified as the “Defaulting Defendants,” asserting that those defendants had been properly served but had not appeared. A default judgment is a judgment sought against a party who has not appeared in the case.
Before this motion, the court had granted in part and denied in part Jscout’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. The court had held that Plaintiffs’ trademark-based claims against Jscout failed because Plaintiffs did not allege a legally relevant possibility that consumers would be confused by Jscout’s conduct. The court explained that Jscout’s only use of anything resembling Plaintiffs’ protected marks was writing “Wall Climber Car” in the product manual, which consumers would see only after buying and opening the product.
Reasons for the Ruling
The court declined to find the Defaulting Defendants liable on the information before it. It explained that the earlier ruling against Jscout did not necessarily prevent trademark-based liability against the Defaulting Defendants. Instead, that ruling raised questions about whether Plaintiffs had pleaded enough facts to support claims against those defendants.
The court found Plaintiffs’ briefing insufficient because their discussion of consumer confusion did not cite the pleadings or explain what facts established liability for any particular Defaulting Defendant. The court also found the proof of service inadequate. Plaintiffs stated that they had served every Defaulting Defendant electronically under an order in the case, but the supporting proof merely stated that service had been made “on each and every Defendant.” It did not identify any Defaulting Defendant by name or specify which authorized form of electronic service was used for each one.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered that Plaintiffs’ current motion for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The court required Plaintiffs, by May 16, 2022, to provide supplemental briefing explaining separately for each Defaulting Defendant: (1) how service was made; (2) which parts of the Second Amended Complaint and its exhibits established that defendant’s liability; and (3) why finding that defendant liable would not conflict with the earlier ruling dismissing the trademark-based claims against Jscout. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the open motion at Document 119.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.