Case No.: 5:17-cv-00543-EJD

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

K VIP AUTO BODY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00543-EJD 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 55

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Kim’s Report and Recommendation to 

dismiss Defendant K VIP Auto Body and to enter default judgment against Guo Yong Chen, 

Jingjing Deng a/k/a Tina Deng, Shao Chun Chen, and Fen Deng a/k/a Andy Deng (collectively 

referred to as “Individual Defendants”) (Dkt. No. 55). To date, no objection to the Report and 

Recommendation has been filed. Having conducted a do novo review of the Report and 

Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the Court ADOPTS the

Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 55) in its entirety and orders as follows:

1. Defendant K VIP Auto Body is DISMISSED from this action.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against the Individual Defendants is 

GRANTED. Plaintiffs are AWARDED $200,000 in statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1117(c). Further, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), the Individual Defendants and their agents, 

representatives, and all persons acting in concert with them, are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED 

from:

a. The import, export, manufacture, reproduction, assembly, use, acquisition, purchase, 

offer, sale, transfer, brokerage, consignment, distribution, shipment, licensing, development, 
Case No.: 5:17-cv-00543-EJD

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

display, delivery, marketing, advertising or promotion of any counterfeit products bearing the 

BMW®, M2®, M3®, M5®, M6®, MINI®, MINI COOPER®, the BMW® blue/white/black 

circle colored mark, the BMW® white circle mark, the BMW® black circle mark, the MINI® 

wing emblem, the ///M® colored striping mark, the ///M® non-colored striping mark, and the 

stylized S® mark, specifically including but not limited to any air caps, valve stem caps, badges, 

key chains, automobile parts or accessories, and any other unauthorized merchandise bearing any

of Plaintiffs’ Trademarks (including any non-genuine reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable 

imitation thereof);

b. The import, export, manufacture, reproduction, assembly, use, acquisition, purchase, 

offer, sale, transfer, brokerage, consignment, distribution, shipment, licensing, development, 

display, delivery, marketing, advertising or promotion of any counterfeit products bearing the 

BMW®, M2®, M3®, M5®, M6®, MINI®, MINI COOPER®, the BMW® blue/white/black 

circle colored mark, the BMW® white circle mark, the BMW® black circle mark, the MINI® 

wing emblem, the ///M® colored striping mark, the ///M® non-colored striping mark, and the 

stylized S® mark, specifically including but not limited to any air caps, valve stem caps, badges, 

key chains, automobile parts or accessories, and any other product which infringes or dilutes any 

of Plaintiffs’ Trademarks, trade name, and/or trade dress, including but not limited to any of 

Plaintiffs’ Trademarks;

c. The unauthorized use, in any manner whatsoever, of any of Plaintiffs’ Trademarks, trade 

names and/or trade dress, including but not limited to BMW®, M2®, M3®, M5®, M6®, MINI®, 

MINI COOPER®, the BMW® blue/white/black circle colored mark, the BMW® white circle 

mark, the BMW® black circle mark, the MINI® wing emblem, the ///M® colored striping mark, 

the ///M® non-colored striping mark, and the stylized S® mark, any variants, colorable imitations, 

translations and/or simulations thereof, and/or any items that are confusingly similar thereto, 

including specifically:

i. on or in conjunction with any product or service; and 

ii. on or in conjunction with any advertising, promotional materials, labels, 
Case No.: 5:17-cv-00543-EJD

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

hangtags, packaging, or containers;

d. The use of any trademark, trade name, or trade dress that falsely represents, or is likely 

to confuse, mislead or deceive purchasers, customers, or members of the public to believe that

unauthorized product imported, exported, manufactured, reproduced, distributed, assembled,

acquired, purchased, offered, sold, transferred, brokered, consigned, distributed, stored, shipped,

marketed, advertised and/or promoted by Defendants originate from Plaintiffs, or that said

merchandise has been sponsored, approved, licensed by, or associated with Plaintiffs or is, in

some way, connected or affiliated with Plaintiffs;

e. Engaging in any conduct that falsely represents that, or is likely to confuse, mislead, or 

deceive purchasers, customers, or members of the public to believe that Defendants are connected 

with, or are in some way sponsored by or affiliated with Plaintiffs, purchases product from or 

otherwise has a business relationship with Plaintiffs; and/or

f. Affixing, applying, annexing, or using in connection with the manufacture, distribution, 

advertising, sale, and/or offering for sale or other use of any goods, a false description or 

representation, including words or symbols, tending to falsely describe or represent such goods as 

being those of Plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge