1979 Family Trust Licensor, LLC v. Darji

Background

The plaintiffs sued under the federal trademark statute and related New York law, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution, and cybersquatting based on the defendants’ use of the Rockefeller name. The court entered default judgment for the plaintiffs on August 19, 2019, after the defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond. The judgment permanently barred the defendants from using the Rockefeller mark in connection with their businesses or in domain names connected to websites they owned or controlled.

The plaintiffs later obtained contempt findings and sanctions after alleging that the defendants failed to comply with the judgment. The plaintiffs also renewed a contempt motion in April 2023, alleging that the defendants had resumed trademark-infringing activity. Darji then moved to vacate the 2019 default judgment. The court treated that filing as a self-represented filing by Darji alone. It struck the motion to the extent it sought relief for Rockefeller Management Co., because that corporation could appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney.

Motion to Vacate

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment for specified reasons, including mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another justified reason. A motion based on the first three reasons must be filed within one year, and all Rule 60(b) motions must be filed within a reasonable time.

The court first held that Darji’s motion was untimely. He filed it nearly four years after entry of the default judgment, so the delay alone supported denial. The court also considered the usual factors for vacating a default judgment: whether the default was willful, whether the defendant had a potentially valid defense, and whether reopening the case would prejudice the plaintiffs.

The court found that Darji had been personally served with the summons and complaint and later with the motion for default judgment. He did not respond or attend the scheduled hearing. The court rejected his claim that he had not been served or had not received the judgment, finding that the record showed he accepted service and received the judgment by email. The court concluded that his failure to respond appeared willful and was not adequately explained.

The court also found that Darji had not shown a meritorious defense to the trademark-infringement and dilution claims. His submissions included documents that purported to show he had legally changed his name to Mehal Darji Rockefeller, and he asserted that he was a rightful heir to the Rockefeller trademark. The court found those materials insufficient. It further held that vacating the judgment would prejudice the plaintiffs, who had continued efforts to protect their trademark rights.

Disposition

The court denied Darji’s motion to vacate the August 19, 2019 default judgment. Separately, it granted Darji and Rockefeller Management Co. another opportunity to oppose the plaintiffs’ pending contempt motion. Their opposition was due June 2, 2023, and any reply from the plaintiffs was due June 9, 2023. The court reminded Rockefeller Management Co. that it could oppose the contempt motion only through a licensed attorney.