Christian Dior Couture SA v. Lin

Background

Christian Dior Couture SA and Louis Vuitton Malletier sued Xiaowei Gao and other defendants under the federal Lanham Act and New York law. The claims included trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition, passing off, and related claims.

The plaintiffs alleged that Gao had reproduced their trademarks or had imported, advertised, marketed, promoted, distributed, offered for sale, or sold counterfeit products containing those marks. They also alleged that a vehicle registered to Gao was among vehicles connected to the alleged counterfeiting operations and used to store counterfeit products.

The plaintiffs served Gao with the Second Amended Complaint on February 3, 2023. Her answer was due 14 days later, on February 17. After she did not answer by that deadline, the plaintiffs moved for entry of default, and the Clerk entered a Certificate of Default against Gao on March 2, 2023.

Gao’s Motions

Gao moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to vacate her default and dismiss the claims against her. Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. In the alternative, she asked the court to vacate the default and require the plaintiffs to accept her proposed answer.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court held that the Second Amended Complaint pleaded enough facts to state claims against Gao that were plausible on their face. It therefore denied Gao’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

The plaintiffs did not object to Gao’s alternative request to vacate the default. The court granted that request, vacated the Clerk’s Certificate of Default against Gao, and directed the Clerk to terminate the open motion. The opinion does not state whether the court ruled on the proposed answer itself.