United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION & ORDER
D. PETERSON, District Judge
Spectrum Brands, Inc. is a consumer products company, and
among its many products are pet de-shedding tools sold under
the FURMINATOR brand. Spectrum Brands contends that
defendants I&J Apparel, LLC and John Does 1-10 sold
counterfeit FURMINATOR de-shedding tools. I&J Apparel
failed to respond to Spectrum Brands' complaint, and the
clerk of court entered default against I&J Apparel.
Spectrum Brands moves for default judgment against I&J
Apparel, seeking damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees,
and costs. Dkt. 13.
court concludes that I&J Apparel is liable for four
counts of trademark infringement and eight counts of
copyright infringement. This order will: dismiss the Doe
defendants; enjoin I&J Apparel from further infringing
Spectrum Brands' trademarks and copyrights; and award
statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs. The court will
close the case, although Spectrum Brands may reopen the case
for good cause.
court draws the following facts from Spectrum Brands'
complaint, default judgment submissions, and representations
made to the court during the default hearing.
Brands sells de-shedding tools for pets using four trademarks
and eight copyrighted works. The four trademarks at issue are
Spectrum Brands' FURMINATOR mark, STYLIZED FURMINATOR
mark, FUREJECTOR mark, and STYLIZED PAW mark. Dkts. 1-3 to
Dkt. 1-6. The artworks on the packaging constitute the eight
copyrighted works at issue. Dkts. 1-7 to Dkt. 1-14. Each of
marks and works is registered with either the United States
Trademark Office or the Copyright Office as appropriate.
Apparel sold counterfeit FURMINATOR de-shedding tools through
various online stores. John Does 1-10 are manufacturers,
resellers, and distributors of the counterfeits. Although
counsel for Spectrum Brands has had some communication with
counsel for I&J Apparel, I&J Apparel has failed to
answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
Brands' motion for default judgment does not address its
claims against the Doe defendants. During the default
hearing, Spectrum Brands indicated that it would dismiss all
claims against the Does without prejudice, thereby allowing
the court to close the case.
Brands has adequately shown that I&J Apparel's
infringement is willful. Spectrum Brands filed complaints
with Amazon.com, indicating that I&J Apparel was selling
counterfeits, and Amazon.com removed I&J Apparel's
product listings from the website. Amazon.com's
de-listing of I&J Apparel's products prompted I&J
Apparel to confer with Spectrum Brands. I&J Apparel
conceded that it sold counterfeits and offered to cooperate
with Spectrum Brands. See Dkt. 11-6 and Dkt. 11-10.
But I&J Apparel continued to sell counterfeits at
eBay.com and Walmart.com. Dkt. 11, ¶¶ 21-23.
Brands asserts five sets of claims against all defendants:
(1) trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act; (2)
trademark infringement claims under common law; (3) copyright
infringement claims under the Copyright Act; (4) unfair
competition claims under the Lanham Act; and (5) unfair
competition claims under common law. Dkt. 1, ¶¶
52-83. Spectrum Brands moves for default judgment on its
claims against I&J Apparel. Spectrum Brands asks for a
permanent injunction, statutory damages, attorney fees, and
costs. Spectrum Brands also requests post-judgment discovery
and asks the court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of
enforcing the judgment. Dkt. 13-1, ¶¶ 7-8.
John Does 1-10
the hearing, Spectrum Brands informed the court that it would
agree to dismiss its claims against the Doe defendants
without prejudice. The court will do so.
Default judgment ...