Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02464/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02464-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The American Automobile Association,

Inc.,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Triple A Auto Glass, LLC, et al.

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 11-CV-2464-PHX-PGR

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. 19.) 

Plaintiff, The American Automobile Association (“AAA”), commenced this action

on December 13, 2011, filing a complaint alleging trademark infringement, false designation

of origin, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and cyberpiracy, in violation of Sections

32 and 43(a) of the Federal Trademark Act (“Lanham Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a), (c),

and (d), common law, and Arizona law. (Doc. 1.) The action concerns the unauthorized use

by Defendants Triple A Auto Glass, LLC, and John Price of AAA’s trademarks (the “AAA

Marks” or “Marks”) in connection with the business Triple A Auto Glass and the registration

and use of the domain name TRIPLEAAUTOGLASS.COM to host a website in connection

with that business. (Id.)

In September 2011, AAA learned that Defendants had registered the business Triple

A Auto Glass and were operating an automobile glass repair service under that name. (Id. at

¶ 37.) On September 14, 2011, AAA sent a letter to Defendants requesting that they cease

all unauthorized use of the AAA Marks in the business name Triple A Auto Glass and that

Case 2:11-cv-02464-PGR Document 21 Filed 04/02/12 Page 1 of 6
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 -

they transfer the TRIPLEAAUTOGLASS.COM domain name to Plaintiff. Defendants failed

to respond to the letter. (Id. at ¶¶ 38–39.) AAA sent a second cease and desist letter on

October 18. Defendant Triple A Auto Glass responded that same day by claiming that it had

no knowledge that it was using the AAA Marks in advertising. AAA sent Defendants a reply

email on October 21 reiterating its rights in the AAA Marks, including TRIPLE A, and

further requesting that Defendants cease use of the Marks, but Defendants failed to respond.

(Id. at ¶¶ 39–42.)

A Summons and Complaint were served on Defendant Triple A Auto Glass on

December 14 and 19, 2011, and on Defendant John Price on January 31, 2012. No answer

or other defense has been filed by any Defendant. The Clerk of the Court entered a default

as to Defendant Triple A Auto Glass on February 13, 2012, and as to John Price on March

6, 2012. (Docs. 15, 18.)

In the pending motion for default judgment, AAA seeks an order permanently

enjoining Defendants from using the AAA Marks without authorization, including in the

name Triple A Auto Glass. (Doc. 19.) AAA also asks the Court to enter a judgment of

$11,093.60 in costs and attorneys’ fees against Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(d)(1), (2). (Id.)

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides that “[w]hen a party against whom a

judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided

by these rules . . . the clerk shall enter the party’s default.” After a default has been entered

and the defendant fails to appear or move to set aside the default under Rule 55(c), the Court

may, on the plaintiff’s motion, enter a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). 

Granting default judgment is within the Court’s sound discretion. See Albade v.

Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In exercising that discretion, the Court may

consider such factors as the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, the merits of the

substantive claim, the sufficiency of the complaint, the sum of money at stake, the possibility

Case 2:11-cv-02464-PGR Document 21 Filed 04/02/12 Page 2 of 6
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 -

of a dispute concerning material facts, whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and

the policy favoring decisions on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72

(9th Cir. 1986). In considering these factors, all factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint

are taken as true, except those relating to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826

F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987).

Based on the factual allegations set forth in the Complaint, AAA is entitled to

judgment against Defendants. Defendants have knowingly and willfully violated AAA’s

rights in the AAA Marks by continuing to make unauthorized use of the Marks in the

business name Triple A Auto Glass and in the TRIPLEAAUTOGLASS.COM domain name.

Defendants’ infringing uses have damaged, and will continue to damage, the reputation,

recognition, and goodwill associated with the AAA Marks.

The Eitel factors favor default judgment. AAA will be prejudiced if default is not

entered because absent judgment AAA will be without recourse for recovery. The Complaint

sufficiently sets forth a valid claim for relief. Given the sufficiency of the Complaint and

Defendants’ default, there is no dispute concerning the material facts. Defendants were

properly served, so it is unlikely that their failure to answer and the resulting default resulted

from excusable neglect. Gemmel v. Systemhouse, Inc., No. CIV 04-187-TUC-CKJ, 2008 WL

65604, at *5 (D.Ariz. Jan. 3, 2008). Defendants’ default makes a decision on the merits

“impractical, if not impossible.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Security Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172,

1177 (C.D.Cal. 2002). With respect to the amount at stake, AAA seeks injunctive relief

rather than monetary damages, so this factor also favors granting default judgment. Id. at

1176–77.

AAA also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs. AAA is entitled to costs under Rule

54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

Attorneys’ fees may be awarded in “exceptional cases.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). “A

trademark case is exceptional where the district court finds that the defendant acted

maliciously, fraudulently, deliberately, or willfully.” Earthquake Sound Corp. v. Bumper

Case 2:11-cv-02464-PGR Document 21 Filed 04/02/12 Page 3 of 6
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 -

Industries, 352 F.3d 1210, 1216 (9th Cir. 2003). AAA’s allegations, taken as true, show that

Defendants’ infringement was willful. See Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284

F.3d 1007, 1023 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “by entry of default judgment, the district court

determined, as alleged in RIO’s complaint, that RII’s acts were committed ‘knowingly,

maliciously, and oppressively, and with an intent to . . . injure RIO.’”). A case may also be

deemed exceptional if the defendant has refused to appear and defend. See Taylor Made Golf

Co., Inc. v. Carsten Sports, Ltd., 175 F.R.D. 658, 663 (S.D.Cal. 1997).

Because Defendants’ infringement is willful and they have refused to appear and

defend, this case is “exceptional” and AAA is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. AAA

has submitted declarations from counsel in support of its request for attorneys’ fees. (See

Doc. 20, Exs. 1–4.). Having considered this information, the Court finds that the fees

requested by AAA are reasonable. 

Under the Lanham Act, “the district court [has] the ‘power to grant injunctions

according to principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to

prevent the violation of any right’ of the trademark owner.” Reno Air Racing Ass'n v.

McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006). “Injunctive relief is the remedy of choice for

trademark and unfair competition cases, since there is no adequate remedy at law for the

injury caused by a defendant’s continuing infringement.” Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v.

Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 1988). 

For the Court to grant a permanent injunction, AAA must demonstrate that it is likely

to succeed on the merits, that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury if injunctive relief is

not granted, that a balance of hardships favors AAA, and that an injunction will advance the

public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Counsel, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). AAA satisfies

these criteria. It has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. If an

injunction were not granted, AAA would suffer irreparable injury from the ongoing damages

to its reputation and goodwill. Furthermore, the balance of hardships favors AAA because

an injunction will only proscribe Defendants’ infringing activities. Finally, an injunction is

Case 2:11-cv-02464-PGR Document 21 Filed 04/02/12 Page 4 of 6
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 -

in the public interest because “[t]he public has an interest in avoiding confusion between two

companies’ products.” Internet Specialties West, Inc. v. Millon–Di Giorgio Enters., Inc., 559

F.3d 985, 993 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Judgment in favor of AAA against Defendants Triple A

Auto Glass, LLC, and John Price.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED issuing the following injunction:

1. Each Defendant, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons

in active concert or participation with any of them, are enjoined and restrained from engaging

in any of the following acts:

(1) Using without the authorization of AAA any of AAA’s Marks, logos,

and trade names, including, but not limited to, the designations “AAA” or “TRIPLE A,” or

any other name, logo, or Mark that includes the designations “AAA” or “TRIPLE A” that

is confusingly or deceptively similar to any of AAA’s Marks, logos, and trade names, either

alone or in conjunction with other words or symbols, as a part of any trademark, service

mark, logo, trade name, corporate name, assumed name, domain name, on or in relation to

any goods sold or distributed by Defendants, or in any other manner; and

(2) Using the letter “A” or any multiple combination of letters “A” in any

form or manner that would tend to identify or associate Defendants or their business or

services with AAA, including, without limitation, in the marketing, promotion, advertising,

identification, sale or distribution of goods or services, or in any other manner;

2. Defendants are ordered to destroy all literature, signs, labels, prints, packages,

wrappers, containers, advertising materials, Internet content, stationery, software, and any

other items in its possession or control which contain the infringing designations “AAA” or

“TRIPLE A,” or any term confusingly similar to the AAA Marks, either alone or in

combination with other words or symbols, and to destroy all plates, molds, matrices, masters,

and other means of making any of those infringing items; 

Case 2:11-cv-02464-PGR Document 21 Filed 04/02/12 Page 5 of 6
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 -

3. Defendants are ordered to provide notice to any and all third parties of whom

or of which they have knowledge that are using the designations “AAA” or “TRIPLE A,” or

any term confusingly similar to the AAA Marks, either alone or in combination with other

words or symbols, in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, or other

identification of Defendants’ business;

4. Defendants are ordered to cancel any assumed business names and other public

filings that contain the designations “AAA” or “TRIPLE A” and to cancel or amend any

licenses or registrations that contain those designations, so as to remove the designations

therefrom;

5. Defendants are ordered to transfer to AAA the registration for the domain name

TRIPLEAAUTOGLASS.COM; and

6. Defendants are ordered to file with the Court and to serve on AAA, within

thirty (30) days after the date of entry of this Order, a report in writing, under oath, setting

forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with this injunction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED finding that an award to Plaintiff of costs of suit and

reasonable attorneys’ fees is appropriate in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and Arizona

law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ costs and fees in the

amount of $11,093.60.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of April, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02464-PGR Document 21 Filed 04/02/12 Page 6 of 6