Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02242/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02242-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

-1- 07cv2242

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STORZ PERFORMANCE, INC., a

California Corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.07-CV-2242 W (WMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

ENTRY OF RULE 55 DEFAULT

JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 22.)

vs.

MOTO ITALIA, form unknown;

LESLIE BULL, an individual; CYCLE

PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;

JOHN BASORE, and individual, and;

DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

On November 27, 2007, Plaintiff Storz Performance (“Storz”) commenced this

trademark infringement action. Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against

Defendants Moto Italia (“Moto”), Leslie Bull (“Bull”), Cycle Performance Products, Inc.

(“Cycle”), and John Basore (“Basore”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. No. 22.)

None of the Defendants have ever properly appeared in this action and none have filed

any opposition to this motion. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted

and without oral argument. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(d.1). For the reasons stated

Case 3:07-cv-02242-W-WMC Document 23 Filed 09/15/08 Page 1 of 8
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- 07cv2242

herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion

for entry of default judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed this action for trademark infringement,

unfair competition, accounting, and injunctive relief against Defendants. (Doc. No. 1.)

Plaintiff is a manufacturer and purveyor of motorcycle accessories, many of which are

marketed and sold under the “Ceriani” trademark. (Compl. 2:17-28.) Plaintiff alleges

that Defendant Moto is a California entity of unknown form that markets and sells

motorcycles and motorcycle accessories. (Compl. 3:4-13.) Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant Cycle is a foreign corporation that produces and sells motorcycle accessories.

(Compl. 3:18-27.) Also according to Plaintiff, Defendants Bull and Basore each serve

as owner, director, or officer of Moto Italia and Cycle Performance Products, Inc.,

respectively . (Compl. 3:14-17; 4:1-6.) 

 Plaintiff’s complaint and motion for default judgment allege the following.

Beginning in 1985, Plaintiff has sold its products under the name “Ceriani.” (Pl.’s Mot.

2:10-11.) Plaintiff subsequently registered this trademark both in California and with

the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (Pl.’s Mot. 2:11-15.) Plaintiff claims

that the “Ceriani” mark “has become famous for identifying Storz as the manufacturer

and seller” of various products carrying the “Ceriani” name. (Pl.’s Mot. 2:16-18.)

Amongst other products, Plaintiff designs and markets motorcycle fork suspension

systems under the Ceriani name. (Pl.’s Mot. 2:24-26.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants have been misappropriating the “Ceriani”

name while importing and selling inferior motorcycle parts, components and accessories

throughout the United States. (Pl.’s Mot. 2:24-26.) Plaintiff specifically claims that

Defendants have been importing and selling motorcycle front fork suspension systems

with the “Ceriani” label. (Pl.’s Mot. 2:24-26.)

On February 21 and 25, 2008, Plaintiff properly served Defendants with the

Complaint. (Doc. Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10.) On March 24 and April 7, 2008 the Court rejected

Case 3:07-cv-02242-W-WMC Document 23 Filed 09/15/08 Page 2 of 8
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

-3- 07cv2242

ex parte communications attempted by Defendant Basore. (Doc. Nos. 16, 17.) To date,

Defendants have failed to attempt any further filings or otherwise appear in this action.

In the instant Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiff requests that the Court

enjoin Defendants from using the “Ceriani” trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), a

provision of the statutory scheme commonly known as the Lanham Act. Plaintiff also

asks that the Court order Defendants to provide Plaintiff with an accounting of all sales

of products containing the “Ceriani” mark. Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court

retain jurisdiction regarding remaining monetary damages issues following Defendants’

accounting. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs applications to the

court for default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Default judgment is available

as long as the plaintiff establishes (1) defendant has been served with the summons and

complaint and default was entered for their failure to appear; (2) defendant is neither

a minor nor an incompetent person; (3) defendant is not in military service or not

otherwise subject to the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act of 1940; and (4) if defendant has

appeared in the action, that defendant was provided with notice of the application for

default judgment at least three days prior to the hearing. See, e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 521;

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Streeter, 438 F. Supp. 2d

1065, 1070 (D. Ariz. 2006).

Entry of default judgment is within the trial court’s discretion. See Taylor Made

Golf Co. v. Carsten Sports, Ltd., 175 F.R.D. 658, 660 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (Brewster, J.)

(citing Lau Ah Yew v. Dulles, 236 F.2d 415, 416 (9th Cir. 1956)). In making this

determination, the court considers the following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice

to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the

complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a dispute

Case 3:07-cv-02242-W-WMC Document 23 Filed 09/15/08 Page 3 of 8
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

-4- 07cv2242

concerning the material facts, (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and

(7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions

on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Upon entry of default, the factual allegations in plaintiff's complaint, except those

relating to damages, are deemed admitted. E.g., Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826

F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557,

560 (9th Cir. 1977)). Respecting the damages determination, the general rule is that

well-pled allegations in the complaint regarding liability are deemed true and the court

is not required to make detailed findings of fact. See Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs,

285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that the district court’s factual findings were

sufficiently supported by evidence in the record). If sufficiently documented and

detailed, damages claims may be fixed by an accounting, declarations or affidavits. See

James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. LIABILITY: DEFENDANTS BASORE & BULL

Plaintiff claims that Defendants infringed on its “Ceriani” trademark by selling

bogus products under the “Ceriani” name. Plaintiff seeks a default judgment on this

trademark infringement claim under Rule 55(b)(2).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the preliminary requirements of

Rule 55(b)(2) for Defendants Bull and Basore. Before the Court may enter default

judgment, the party seeking judgment must first show that the opposing party is not a

minor, incompetent, or a member of the military. Because Defendants Bull and Basore

are natural persons, default judgment may not be entered against either party unless

Plaintiff files affidavits showing that these Defendants are not currently in military

service, minors, or incompetent. Only when that prerequisite is satisfied may the Court

enter default judgment against Defendants Bull and Basore. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES the Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Bull and Basore. The

Case 3:07-cv-02242-W-WMC Document 23 Filed 09/15/08 Page 4 of 8
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

-5- 07cv2242

remainder of this Order applies only to Defendants Cycle and Moto. 

B. LIABILITY: DEFENDANTS CYCLE AND MOTO

 In order to prevail on a trademark infringement action, the plaintiff must show

(1) ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) that the alleged infringers

violated its exclusive right to the mark. Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 453 (9th Cir.

2006). In order to show infringement, the plaintiff must show that the similarity of the

marks creates a likelihood of consumer confusion. See E & J Gallo Winery v. Gallo

Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1290 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The core element of trademark

infringement is the likelihood of confusion, i.e., whether the similarity of the marks is

likely to confuse consumers about the source of the products”). In order to determine

the likelihood of consumer confusion, the Court must weigh each of the following eight

factors: (1) strength of the trademark; (2) proximity of the goods; (3) similarity in

appearance, sound and meaning; (4) evidence of consumer confusion; (5) type of goods

in question; (6) marketing channels; (7) likelihood of expansion of the product lines;

(8) intent. See Eclipse Assoc. Ltd. v. Data General Corp., 894 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th

Cir. 1990). 

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the threshold

requirements for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 regarding

Defendants Cycle and Moto. Defendants have been served with the complaint and

summons. Defendants Cycle and Moto are corporations, and thus not minors,

incompetents, or subject to the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act of 1940. Defendants

were served with this motion in July, as well as the clerk’s entry of default. To date, the

Court has received no opposition to the motion for entry of default judgment.

Furthermore, since Defendants have never appeared in this action, Plaintiff was not

required to serve them with notice of the application for default judgment. See Taylor

Made Golf Co.,175 F.R.D. at 661 (acknowledging that notice of application for default

judgment is not required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) for a party that has never appeared

Case 3:07-cv-02242-W-WMC Document 23 Filed 09/15/08 Page 5 of 8
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

-6- 07cv2242

in the action). 

The Court next considers the Ninth Circuit’s default judgment factors and finds

that Plaintiff’s pleadings support granting the motion. See Marder, 450 F.3d at 453;

Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. Defendants are liable because Plaintiff has demonstrated

exclusive ownership of the trademark at issue. (Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 2.) Plaintiff has also

shown that Defendants have infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive trademark rights by using

Plaintiff’s mark without permission. In fact, Plaintiff’s pleadings show that the

marketing channels, appearance, sound and meaning of the “Ceriani” mark used by both

parties are identical. In sum, the Court finds that the complaint’s allegations adequately

establish liability on the trademark infringement claim. 

The Court further concludes that a default judgment against Defendants is

appropriate and should be granted. Plaintiff will be prejudiced if default judgment is

denied because Plaintiff will have no other recourse for recovery. Furthermore, because

the only remedy sought at this stage of the proceedings is an injunction and not

monetary damages, Defendants will not be unduly disadvantaged by a default judgment

at this time. Finally, because Defendants were properly served with the complaint,

Defendants’ default is not a result of excusable neglect. The Court therefore GRANTS

the Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Cycle and Moto.

C. DAMAGES AND REMEDIES

Plaintiff also seeks an injunction against Defendants to prevent them from selling,

marketing, or using any products under the “Ceriani” name. 

The Lanham Act authorizes the Court to issue permanent injunctions to prevent

future trademark infringements. 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). A permanent injunction is

warranted when there is no reason to believe that the infringing party will cease the

infringement without an injunction. See Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284

F.3d 1007, 1023 (9th Cir. 2002). “As a general rule, a permanent injunction will be

granted when liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing

Case 3:07-cv-02242-W-WMC Document 23 Filed 09/15/08 Page 6 of 8
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

-7- 07cv2242

violations.” Mai Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir.

1993). 

Plaintiff alleges (and by default it is established) that Defendants are selling

similar motorcycle suspension systems marked with a false “Ceriani” label to the same

segment of consumers targeted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has proven that it has the exclusive

right to use the “Ceriani” trademark, and that Defendants have used a mark

substantially similar, if not identical, to the “Ceriani” mark. Moreover, because

Defendants have failed to appear, refusal to grant an injunction would leave Plaintiff

with no recourse at this time other than the required accounting. Because Plaintiff has

sufficiently proven trademark infringement and there is no reason to believe that

Defendants would discontinue infringement absent an injunction, the Court ORDERS

a permanent injunction as more clearly explicated below. 

IV. CONCLUSION & INJUNCTION

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment against Defendants Cycle and Moto. The Court further ORDERS that

Defendants Cycle and Moto are prohibited from using, selling, or offering for sale any

product or packaging containing the “Ceriani” mark. Defendants Cycle and Moto are

ORDERED to deliver to Plaintiff all advertising materials, products, packaging,

catalogues, and any other tangible item containing the “Ceriani” mark, as well as to

notify persons or entities to whom solicitations or sales have been made regarding the

trademark infringing nature of Defendants Cycle and Moto’s sales. Furthermore,

Defendants Cycle and Moto are ORDERED to FULLY AND COMPLETELY

ACCOUNT to Plaintiff for all sales of any products bearing the “Ceriani” mark,

including identifying the suppliers through which the products were obtained. 

At this time, the Court finds it premature to grant default judgment against

Defendants Bull and Basore without further proof from Plaintiff that neither of these

Defendants is in the military, a minor, or incompetent. Therefore, the Court DENIES

the motion for default judgment against Defendants Bull and Basore WITHOUT

Case 3:07-cv-02242-W-WMC Document 23 Filed 09/15/08 Page 7 of 8
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

-8- 07cv2242

PREJUDICE. Should Plaintiff choose, it may file an amended motion containing the

requisite affidavits no later than October 6, 2008.

The Court retains jurisdiction to determine further damages and liability following

an accounting from Defendants Cycle and Moto. The Court refers the remaining

damages issues to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on any

monetary damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, following the accounting.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2008

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02242-W-WMC Document 23 Filed 09/15/08 Page 8 of 8