Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01411/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01411-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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 

WO 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Best Western International, Inc., an 

Arizona non-profit corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Houghton Lake Lodging Investments 

Limited Partnership, a Michigan limited 

partnership; and Bruce A. Smith, an 

individual, 

 Defendants. 

No. CV-09-01411-PHX-FJM 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

The court has before it plaintiff Best Western International, Inc.’s motion for 

default judgment against defendants Houghton Lake Lodging Investments Limited 

Partnership and Bruce Smith (doc. 14). 

Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., we find the following: 

A. The defendants were served on September 15, 2009; 

B. Defendants failed to answer or make an appearance; 

C. Default was entered on October 16, 2009; 

D. The factual allegations in plaintiff=s complaint are taken as true; and 

Case 2:09-cv-01411-FJM Document 16 Filed 11/05/09 Page 1 of 4
 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 

E. Plaintiff’s affidavits support the damages claimed. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s motion for default 

judgment (doc. 14). Plaintiff is granted judgment against defendants Houghton Lake 

Lodging Investments Limited Partnership and Bruce A. Smith as follows: 

A. On Counts I and II of the complaint, in the amount of $21,286.05, plus 

interest thereon at the rate of 1.5% per month from and after October 1, 

2009; 

B. On Count III of the complaint, in the amount of $152,847.00; 

C. Defendants and their agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those 

persons in active concert or participation with defendants are permanently 

enjoined from: 

i) making any use of the Best Western Marks, any colorable 

imitation thereof, or any other confusingly similar marks; 

ii) displaying, authorizing, licensing or assisting or facilitating any 

other person’s or entity’s use of display of the Best Western 

Marks or any colorable imitation thereof; 

iii) using anything consisting of or incorporating any one or more 

words, letters, designs or devices that contain any component of 

the Best Western Marks, or which singly or together are similar 

in spelling, sound, appearance, or in any other manner to the 

Best Western Marks; 

Case 2:09-cv-01411-FJM Document 16 Filed 11/05/09 Page 2 of 4
 3 

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 

iv) Defendants are directed to immediately and permanently remove 

all Best Western Marks as used on the premises of, or in 

reference to, the hotel including, but not limited to, any road 

signs, wall signs, or any other display or item bearing any of the 

Best Western Marks; 

v) Defendants and any other persons and entities acting on behalf 

of or in concert with defendants, are directed to immediately 

notify all advertisers, search engines, and providers of related 

services that defendants’ hotel is not affiliated with Best 

Western and defendants are required to cause the cessation of all 

advertising and distribution of promotional material containing 

any of the Best Western Marks, any colorable imitation thereof, 

or any other confusingly similar marks, and defendants are 

enjoined from using any such marks (or any imitations or marks 

confusingly similar thereto) anywhere on the internet or 

elsewhere, including, but not limited to, any use on or with any 

websites, domain names, metatags, key words, banner ads, or 

search engines; and 

D. Plaintiff is awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred 

herein in the amount of $3,832.79. 

Case 2:09-cv-01411-FJM Document 16 Filed 11/05/09 Page 3 of 4
 4 

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 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 

injunction as moot (doc. 6). 

 Dated this 4th day of November, 2009. 

Case 2:09-cv-01411-FJM Document 16 Filed 11/05/09 Page 4 of 4