Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04531/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04531-31/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CRATERS & FREIGHTERS, a Colorado 

Corporation, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

DAISYCHAIN ENTERPRISES, a 

California Corporation, dba 

FREIGHT & CRATE; CATHY BENZ, an 

individual; and FRED BENZ, an 

individual, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 09-4531 CW 

ORDER FINDING 

DEFENDANTS IN 

CONTEMPT 

 On April 23, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for 

an order to show cause why Defendants should not be held in 

contempt for violating the Court’s permanent injunction and set a 

hearing for May 21, 2015. Docket No. 214. On May 21, 2015, 

counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants, proceeding pro se, appeared 

for the show cause hearing. At the hearing, Defendants did not 

contest Plaintiff’s evidence that they had incorporated a Colorado 

business named “Craters & Freighters, Inc.” or that they had used 

the name “Freight & Crate” in filings before the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion that 

Defendants be held in contempt and ORDERS as follows: 

 (1) On or before May 28, 2015, Defendants shall file with 

the Colorado Secretary of State the necessary paperwork to request 

the dissolution of the business named “Craters & Freighters, Inc.” 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 223 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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) On or before May 28, 2015, Defendants shall modify their 

filing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office to 

make clear that the filing is being made on behalf of Cathy Benz 

and Fred Benz, and not on behalf of “Freight & Crate.” 

 (3) Defendants shall provide Plaintiff’s counsel and the 

Court with proof of their compliance with items (1) and (2). If 

Defendants fail to comply with item (1) or (2), the Court will 

impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000 per day 

beginning on May 28, 2015, until compliance is shown. 

 (4) Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the instant motion for a 

contempt finding. On or before May 28, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel 

shall file a declaration detailing time spent, hourly rates and 

costs claimed. Defendants may file a response to the declaration 

within one week thereafter. Defendants’ filing may only address 

the reasonableness of the amount of fees and costs requested. 

Plaintiff may file a reply within four days of the filing of any 

response by Defendants. 

 In addition, Defendants have agreed to begin to pay the 

previously ordered sanctions in weekly installments of $10. 

Defendants made a payment of $20 on May 21, 2015, representing the 

payments due on that date and May 28, 2015. The next payment is 

due on June 4, 2015 and then every week thereafter. Payments 

shall be made directly to Plaintiff or to Plaintiff’s counsel’s 

trust account. On or before May 28, 2015, Defendants shall file a 

financial affidavit to support their contention that $10 per week 

is the maximum amount they are able to pay toward the previously 

ordered sanctions. If Defendants fail to comply with the payment 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 223 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

27 

28 

plan outlined above, Plaintiff may file a motion for additional 

coercive civil or criminal contempt sanctions, including 

incarceration. Any such motion must cite legal authority 

permitting the Court to impose the requested sanctions and detail 

the procedural requirements that apply. 

 The Court DENIES Defendants’ objections to the Court’s April 

23, 2015 order. Docket No. 215. Finally, as stated at the 

hearing, Plaintiff need not respond to Defendants’ future filings 

unless the Court specifically requests a response. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 05/22/2015 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 223 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 3