Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01194/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01194-7/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

27

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Best Western International, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

1496815 Ontario, Inc. et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1194-PHX-SMM

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against

Defendant 1496815 Ontario, Inc. (Doc. 57), filed pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules

fo Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of this Court. 

Upon entry of default, a district court may enter default judgment under certain

circumstances, except against an infant or incompetent unless represented by a general

guardian, committee, conservator, or other individual who has appeared before the Court.

FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2). The district court's decision to enter default judgment is

discretionary, and it is within the court's power to decline to enter default judgment in favor

of a party whose claims are meritless. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir.

1980). When evaluating whether or not to enter default judgment, a district court may also

consider, among other things, the sufficiency of the complaint, Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v.

Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988), the sum at stake, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 59 Filed 11/21/07 Page 1 of 5
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

- 2 -

1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986), and whether the default was due to excusable neglect, Id. at

1472.

On September 14, 2007, the Clerk fo the Court entered the default of the Defendant

1496815 Ontario, Inc. Despite this, the Court has yet to receive any type of responsive

pleading from Defendant. The default established 1496815 Ontario, Inc.’s liability to

Plaintiff. The judgment sought by Plaintiff is supported by an itemized statement of legal

services and costs, a Verified Complaint, an affidavit of Michael Helms, Plaintiff’s attorney,

and an affidavit of Cheryl Pollack, Director of Member Services at Best Western

International, Inc.

The Court finds that because the damages are easily ascertainable from the Verified

Complaint, liquidated damages set forth in the Membership Agreement, and the affidavits

on record, no evidentiary hearing is necessary. 

As to the injunction, Section 502(a) of the Copyright Act specifically provides for

injunctive relief to prevent continued infringement. "Any court having jurisdiction of a civil

action arising under this title may, subject to the provisions of section 1498 of title 28,

grant...final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain

infringement of a copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 502(a). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s infringing conduct is causing irreparable

injury and cannot fully be compensated or measured in money. Moreover, they allege that

they are certain to suffer continued injury in the future unless the Court enjoins the

Defendant’s from continuing to infringe on Plaintiff’s copyrights. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has meritorious claims, to the amount requested in its

motion, and the default by Defendant was not apparently due to excusable neglect, as it had

notice of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, default judgment against Defendant 1496815

Ontario and in favor of Plaintiff will be entered accordingly.

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 59 Filed 11/21/07 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

Based upon Plaintiffs' Motion For Default Judgment, and good cause appearing

therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. On Counts I and II of the Complaint in the amount of $60,069.95, plus interest

thereon at the rate of 1.5% per month from and after October 1, 2007;

2. On Count III of the Complaint in the amount of $207,218.39;

3. On Counts V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI, that Defendant and its officers,

agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and those persons in active concert

or participation with said defendant be enjoined from:

A. Making use of the Best Western Marks, any colorable imitation

thereof, or any other confusingly similar marks;

B. Displaying, authorizing, licensing, or assisting, or facilitating

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

Marks or any colorable imitation thereof;

C. Use 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;

D. Directing Defendant and any other persons and entities acting on

behalf of or in concert with Defendant, to immediately and

permanently remove all Best Western Marks used on the

premises of, or in reference to, the Hotel including (without

limitation) any road signs, wall signs, or any other display or

item bearing any of the Best Western Marks; 

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 59 Filed 11/21/07 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

E. Ordering Defendant to permit Best Western to remove and

infringing signs, displays, or items from the hotel, and awarding

Best Western all reasonable and necessary costs of such removal

from Defendant (in addition to whatever penalties the Court may

impose on Defendant for failing to comply with the Court’s

order to remove any infringing signs, displays, or items from the

Hotel), if Defendant does not remove such signs, displays, or

items from the Hotel within ten (10) days of the injunction

issued pursuant to the foregoing;

F. Enjoining Defendant and any other persons and entities acting

on behalf of or in concert with Defendant from applying for,

pursuing, or owning and applications or registrations, including

without limitation any domain names, business names, corporate

names, trade names, trademarks, service marks, or d/b/as that

contain any component of the Best Western Marks, any

colorable imitation thereof, or any confusingly similar Marks;

G. Ordering Defendant and any other persons and entities acting on

behalf of or in concert with Defendant, to immediately assign

the ownership of any application or registration that contains

any component of the Best Western Marks, any colorable

imitation thereof, or any other confusingly similar Marks to Best

Western, or, alternatively, to file all documents necessary to

effectuate Defendant’s abandonment of such applications or

registrations;

H. Ordering Defendant and any other persons and entities acting on

behalf of or in concert with Defendant, to immediately notify all

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 59 Filed 11/21/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

advertisers, search engines, and providers of related services that

Defendant’s Hotel is not affiliated with Best Western and is

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 confusingly

similar marks, and enjoining Defendant from using any such

marks (or any imitations or marks confusingly similar thereto)

anywhere on the Internet or elsewhere, including without

limitation any use on or with any websites, domain names,

metatags, key words, banner ads, or search engines;

I. Directing Defendant to file with this Court and serve on Best

Western within ten (10) days after service of an injunction, a

report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner

and form in which Defendant has complied with such

injunction.

4. On all Counts of the Complaint, for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and

expenses incurred herein in the amount of $25,837.60.

DATED this 19th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 59 Filed 11/21/07 Page 5 of 5