Rove LLC. v. Antonio168

Background

Rove LLC brought claims against Antonio168 and other defendants for infringement and counterfeiting of Rove’s federally registered trademarks under the Lanham Act, as well as false designation of origin, passing off, unfair competition, and related state and common-law claims. The Clerk of Court entered certificates of default against the non-appearing defendants on March 27, 2023. Rove then moved for default judgment.

The court issued an order requiring the non-appearing defendants to explain why default judgment should not be entered. They did not respond or otherwise participate. Rove provided additional documents and a supplemental letter at the court’s direction. Two defendants were not served with the order to show cause, but the court nevertheless found them liable because they had not appeared and the applicable federal rule did not require service of default-judgment notice on a party that had not appeared.

Legal standard

Under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, default judgment involves two steps: the Clerk first enters a certificate of default, and the court then decides whether judgment should be entered. A default generally admits the complaint’s factual allegations, except allegations concerning the amount of damages. The court must still determine whether the admitted allegations establish a valid legal claim. A plaintiff seeking damages must provide evidence establishing the amount with reasonable certainty.

Court’s analysis

Rove sought damages only for its first and second causes of action—trademark counterfeiting and trademark infringement—so the court addressed only those claims. To establish liability under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, Rove had to show that it owned a valid protected trademark, that the defendants used the trademark in commerce without Rove’s consent in connection with goods or services, and that the use was likely to confuse consumers.

After reviewing the complaint and Rove’s submissions, the court concluded that Rove satisfied its burden on the trademark claim. Treating the allegations as true because of the defendants’ defaults, the court held that Rove was entitled to default judgment as to liability.

Disposition

The court granted Rove’s motion for default judgment as to liability. The opinion does not state that the court awarded damages or otherwise resolve the amount of damages.