Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03464/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03464-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHANEL, INC,

Plaintiff,

v

BRANDON DOAN, et al,

Defendants. /

No C–05-3464 VRW

ORDER

On August 26, 2005, plaintiff Chanel, Inc filed this

action alleging that defendants had committed, inter alia,

trademark counterfeiting, infringement and false designation of

origin. Doc #1. After defendants failed to file a responsive

pleading, Chanel moved on December 20, 2005, for entry of default,

Doc #7, which the court clerk granted the next day, Doc #9. On

June 2, 2006, Chanel moved for default judgment against defendants. 

Doc #15. In part because defendants failed to oppose Chanel’s

motion, the court vacated a July 13, 2006, hearing originally

scheduled on this matter. Doc #16.

On July 13, 2006, defendants provided the court with a

San Jose address to which any relevant documentation regarding this

case was to be sent. Doc #17. It appears that prior to this time,

defendants did not have an electronic or other address on file with

Case 3:05-cv-03464-VRW Document 18 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the court. The court recognizes, therefore, that defendants’ lack

of activity in this case might stem from their failure to receive

relevant filings.

Given that defendants appear to be proceeding without

representation and may not have received earlier filings in this

case, the court does not presently rule on the pending motion for

default judgment. Rather, the court ORDERS the parties to SHOW

CAUSE in writing on or before August 17, 2006, why judgment should

not be entered in favor of Chanel. Defendants’ submission should

also address why defendants did not have a proper address on file

with the court, as required by Civ L R 3-11, and why defendants did

not respond to Chanel’s complaint and subsequent motions. The

parties’ submissions should not exceed 15 pages in length and upon

their filing, the matter will stand as submitted. The court will

inform the parties if it desires a hearing on this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03464-VRW Document 18 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 2