Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01188/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01188-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Neon Network, LLC, a New York

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Aspis Liv Forsakrings, a limited liability

company organized under the laws of

Sweden, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1188-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Neon Network, LLC filed a complaint against Defendant Aspis Liv

Forsakrings seeking a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff is entitled to use the Internet

domain name www.aspis.com, that Plaintiff’s use of that domain name does not constitute

trademark infringement, and that Defendant’s alleged mark in the domain name is invalid and

unenforceable. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff has filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to Rule

55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #23. For reasons that follow, the Court will

deny the motion without prejudice.

Because Defendant’s default has been properly entered under Rule 55(a) (see Dkt.

##14, 17, 18), the Court has discretion to grant default judgment against Defendant pursuant

to Rule 55(b). See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); Draper v.

Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). Factors the Court should consider in deciding

whether to grant default judgment include (1) the possibility of prejudice to Plaintiff, (2) the

Case 2:08-cv-01188-DGC Document 24 Filed 05/08/09 Page 1 of 2
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 -

merits of the claims, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake,

if any, (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether default was due

to excusable neglect, and (7) the policy favoring a decision on the merits. See Eitel v.

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

 Because Plaintiff does not address the Eitel factors (see Dkt. #23), the Court

will deny the motion for default judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until

May 22, 2009 to refile the motion. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. #23) is denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff shall have until May 22, 2009 to file a new motion for default

judgment.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01188-DGC Document 24 Filed 05/08/09 Page 2 of 2