Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01415/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01415-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Entrepreneur Media, Inc.
Plaintiff
Kirton Communications Group Limited
Defendant
MAS Financial & Corporate Services Ltd
Defendant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIRTON COMMUNICATIONS GROUP 

LIMITED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01415-SI 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT AGAINST KIRTON 

COMMUNICATIONS GROUP

LIMITED AND MAS FINANCIAL & 

CORPORATE SERVICES LTD.

Re: Dkt. No. 23

On September 18, 2015, the Court held a hearing on plaintiff's application for default 

judgment against defendants Kirton Communications Group Limited and MAS Financial and 

Corporate Services Limited. No one appeared on behalf of the defaulting defendants. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's application for default judgment.

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) provides that a court may enter default judgment 

and, if necessary to effectuate judgment, conduct an accounting, determine the amount of 

damages, establish the truth of any allegation by evidence, or investigate any other matter. While 

the decision to grant or deny an application for default judgment is within the Court’s discretion, 

“[i]n applying th[e] discretionary standard, default judgments are more often granted than denied.” 

PepsiCo v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 431, 432 (C.D. Cal. 1999). "Factors which may be 

considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the entry of a default judgment include: (1) the 

possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the 

sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a 

Case 3:15-cv-01415-SI Document 29 Filed 09/22/15 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the 

strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits."

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). A plaintiff establishes trademark 

infringement or unfair competition by demonstrating that it has a protectable interest in the 

infringed mark, and the defendant’s use of the mark is “likely to cause consumer confusion.” 

Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, 638 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011).

The Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of granting default judgment and 

awarding the requested relief. As an initial matter, the Court finds that for the reasons set forth in 

plaintiff's application, the Court has jurisdiction over defendants. Plaintiff will be prejudiced in 

the absence of a default judgment. In addition, there is no evidence of excusable neglect in the 

record. Further, while cases should be decided on the merits whenever possible, defendants’ 

failure to defend this action has made a decision on the merits impractical, if not impossible. 

Elektra Entm’t Grp. Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 388, 392 (C.D. Cal. 2005). 

The Court also finds that plaintiff has also shown that defendants have infringed EMI’s 

marks and that defendants’ ENTREPRENEUR SPIRIT mark is likely to cause consumer 

confusion with the EMI Marks based on an examination of the relevant Sleekcraft factors. See 

AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 353 (9th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, the Court hereby 

FINDS that: (1) defendants have infringed EMI’s federally registered trademarks in violation of 

15. U.S.C. § 1114; (2) defendants have created a false designation of origin and false 

representation of association in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) defendants have infringed 

EMI’s trademarks in violation of California common law; and (4) defendants have engaged in 

common law unfair competition.

In consideration of the above and after weighing all appropriate equitable factors 

applicable to this case, the Court finds that permanent injunctive relief is appropriate. The Court 

hereby enters the following PERMANENT INJUNCTION: 

Defendants, and their principals, officers, directors, members, partners, agents, servants, 

employees, and attorneys, and all other persons acting in concert or participating with them, who 

receive actual notice of the injunction order by personal or other service, shall permanently:

Case 3:15-cv-01415-SI Document 29 Filed 09/22/15 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1. cease all use and never use the ENTREPRENEUR SPIRIT mark, the EMI marks, 

or any other mark likely to cause confusion with the EMI marks, in connection with the 

promotion, advertising, offering for sale, or sale, of any products or services; 

2. never use any false designation of origin, false representation, or any false or 

misleading description of fact, that can, or is likely to, lead the consuming public or individual 

members thereof, to believe that any products or services produced, offered, promoted, marketed, 

advertised, provided, or sold by defendants are in any manner associated or connected with EMI, 

or are licensed, approved, or authorized in any way by EMI; 

3. never represent, suggest in any fashion to any third party, or perform any act that 

may give rise to the belief, that defendants, or any of their goods or services, are related to, 

authorized by, or sponsored by EMI; 

4. cease all use of the domain name entrepreneurspirit.org and any similar domain 

names, and never register any domain names that contain any of the EMI marks, or any domain 

names confusingly similar to any of the EMI marks; 

5. cease all advertising of products or services under the ENTREPRENEUR SPIRIT 

mark, including but not limited to defendants’ magazine, Facebook page, Twitter account, and 

iTunes application;

6. never unfairly compete with EMI in any manner whatsoever, or engage in any 

unfair, fraudulent, or deceptive business practices that relate in any way to the production, 

distribution, marketing, and/or sale of products and services bearing any of the EMI marks; and

7. never apply for or seek to register the ENTREPRENEUR SPIRIT mark or any 

mark that is likely to cause confusion with any of the EMI marks. 

The Court further ORDERS defendants to file with the Court and serve upon EMI’s 

counsel, within thirty (30) days after service of this order, a report in writing and under oath 

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

injunction.

The Court further ORDERS defendants and their officers, directors, members, agents, 

servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons acting in concert or participating with 

Case 3:15-cv-01415-SI Document 29 Filed 09/22/15 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

them, to transfer to EMI all domain names in defendants’ possession, custody, or control that 

include the word “entrepreneur” or any misspelling thereof, or are otherwise confusingly similar 

to, or contain any of, the EMI Marks, including but not limited to entrepreneurspirit.org.

The Court hereby deems EMI to be the prevailing party in this action under 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1117(a) and 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the Court deems this case 

to be exceptional under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) because of defendants’ intentional and willful 

misconduct. See Rio Props. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1023 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Accordingly, EMI is hereby provisionally awarded its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, 

and is directed to submit within 20 days of the filing date of this order a request for costs and 

attorneys’ fees in accordance with the procedures and deadlines set forth in Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54(d) and Local Rule 54. The fee request will be deemed submitted without oral 

argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01415-SI Document 29 Filed 09/22/15 Page 4 of 4