Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110517_0001048.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-23 16:43:00
Document Index: 25434594

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1114', '§ 1114', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 501', '§ 56', '§ 56', '§ 1114', '§ 1114', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 501']

| Coach, Inc. et al v. Bags & Accessories
Coach, Inc. et al v. Bags & Accessories
COACH, INC. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,v.BAGS & ACCESSORIES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc.'s ("Coach") motion for default judgment [Docket Item 12] as against Defendants Bags & Accessories and Naman Rafi ("Defendants"). For the reasons expressed below, the Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion.
A. Facts*fn1 Coach is a manufacturer and distributor of luxury fashion accessories. Coach sells its goods through its own specialty retail stores, department stores, catalogs, and via the Internet at www.coach.com. Coach owns a number of trademarks, trade dresses, and design elements/copyrights that it uses on its products.
Based on information obtained from a private investigator and Coach staff, Coach alleges that Defendants Bags & Accessories and registered owner Naman Rafi have sold counterfeit Coach items at the store located at 1307 Boardwalk, Atlantic City, New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 28A; Drobny Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) For example, Defendants sold a $6.00 imitation of a $68.00 Coach scarf that bore multiple Coach trademarks and copyrighted design elements. (Compl. ¶ 28B,C.) Neither Bags & Accessories nor Naman Rafi have been given permission to use the Coach trademarks. (Walden Decl. ¶ 13; Compl. ¶ 30.)
Plaintiffs served Defendant Bags & Accessories and Defendant Naman Rafi with a copy of the summons and complaint on May 25, 2010. [Docket Items 7 & 8.] Coach alleges that Defendants have engaged in selling counterfeit goods knowingly and intentionally for the purpose of trading on the reputation of Coach and that Defendants will continue to do so unless otherwise restrained. (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 33.)
On May 18, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a ten-count Complaint against Defendants and ten John Does presenting claims of trademark counterfeiting (15 U.S.C. § 1114), trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114), trade dress infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), false designation of origin and false advertising (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)), copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §§ 501-513), trafficking in counterfeit trademarks (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:3-13.16), unfair competition (N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:4-1), common law trademark infringement, and unjust enrichment. The Defendants were properly served on May 25, 2010, but have failed to respond. On July 22, 2010, Coach filed a request for default, which the Clerk of Court entered pursuant to Rule 55(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., on the same day. Coach now moves the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendants and seeks a permanent injunction, statutory damages, and an award of attorney fees, investigator fees, and costs.
In the present case, after being properly served on May 25, 2010, the Defendants failed to appear or otherwise defend, and the Clerk of the Court entered a default. Therefore, the first issue is whether the Plaintiffs have stated a sufficient cause of action. As will be explained below, the Court determines that Coach has established Defendants' liability for the purposes of this default judgment motion.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs have asserted six federal claims against the Defendants: trademark counterfeiting (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a)); trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a)); trade dress infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); false designation of origin and false advertising (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)); trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)); and copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §§ 501-513). Each was stated sufficiently to establish liability based on federal law.
The first two elements are satisfied by registration and ownership of the relevant trademarks. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15.) The third element is also satisfied. In the Complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 44-45) and through exhibits, (e.g. Drobny Decl., Ex. A) the record has uncontested assertions and evidence that are sufficient to show a likelihood of confusion between the counterfeit scarves and genuine Coach product. Specifically, the photographs of the scarf purchased by the investigator on April 8, 2010, clearly show a reproduction of the Coach Op Art registered trademark. (Drobny Decl. Ex. A; Compl. Ex. A.) Further, it is reasonable to believe that some consumers would be confused by these counterfeit products. See Coach, Inc. v. Cellular Planet, Civ. No. 09-00241, 2010 WL 1853424, at *1, *4 (S.D. Ohio, May 7, 2010) (holding that although the counterfeit items could be distinguished from genuine Coach items because they were being sold out of a trunk of a car, the counterfeit nature of the products meant they were inherently likely to cause confusion). Therefore, a cause of action for trade infringement and false designation has been sufficiently established.
Here, both elements of trademark counterfeiting are met. It has already been established that Defendants infringed Coach's Op Art trademark. In addition, Coach alleges that Defendants' infringement and counterfeiting was willful and intentional. (Compl. ¶ 31.) Coach has also alleged, and the Court must now accept as true, that "products bearing the Coach Marks are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public, and the trade as being high quality products sourced from Coach." (Compl. ¶ 13.) Such well-known brands "are often imitated in order to profit from the company's reputation for high-end products." Coach, Inc. v Cosmetic House, Civ. No. 10-2794, 2011 WL 1211390 at * 4 (D.N.J., March 29, 2011). The Court infers from the sale of the infringing scarf ...