rolls-royce v. rolls royce rizzy opinion.pdf

Upload: mark-h-jaffe

Post on 08-Jul-2018

314 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    1/22

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW

    JERSEY

    ROLLS-ROYCE MOTOR

    CARDS LIMITED

    and ROLLS-ROCE MOTOR CARS

    NA, LLC,

    Civ. No. 15-04 17

     KM

    Plaintiff

    OPINION

    V.

    ROBERT D.

    DAVIS,

    dba

    ROLLS ROYCE

    RIZZY,

    Defendant.

    KEVIN

    MCNULTY,

    U.S.D.J.:

    Plaintiffs, Rolls-Royce

    Motor

    Cars Limited and Rolls-Royce Motor

    Cars

    NA ,

    LLC,  together

    “Rolls-Royce” ,

    bring this

    suit against

    defendant Robert

    D.

    Davis

     a/k/a “Rolls Royce

    Rizzy” related to infringement

    of Rolls-Royce’s

    trademarks. Plaintiffs

    assert claims

    for trademark

    dilution,

    trademark

    infringement, and

    unfair

    competition/false designation of

    origin under the

    Lanham

    Act,

    15

    U.S.C.

     

    1051 et seq. Plaintiffs also assert claims under New

    Jersey statutory and common law.

     Dkt.

    No .   “Cplt.”

    Before the

    Court is

    plaintiffs’

    unopposed

    motion

    for default

    judgment

     Dkt.

    No. 9 .

    For

    the

    reasons discussed

    below, I

    will

    partially grant the

    motion

    for default judgment.

    I. BACKGROUND

    Plaintiff Rolls-Royce Motor

    Cars

    Limited

    is

    a

    company

    organized

    under

    the

    laws of

    England with

    its

    principal place

    of business

    in England.

     Cplt.

    3

    It distributes Rolls-Royce

    vehicles

    to

    Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA , LL

    Id.

    Rolls-Royce

    Motor

    Cars

    NA ,

    LLC

    is

    a

    Delaware limited liability

    company with

    its

    principal place

    of

    business in

    New

    Jersey.

     Cplt.

    4 It is

    responsible for

    the

     

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 22 PageID: 172

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    2/22

    w

    hol

    esal

    e distr

    ibuti

    on

    o

    f Roll

    s-Ro

    yce veh

    icles

    th

    roug

    hou

    t

    the U.S

    .

     I

    cL 

    De

    fend

    ant

    Dav

    is

    r

    esid

    es

    in G

    eorg

    ia. He

    is a m

    usic

    ian w

    ho

    reco

    rds o

    ffers

    , an

    d

    se

    lls h

    is

    mus

    ic un

    der the

    stag

    e

    n

    ame ‘

    Roll

    s R

    oyce

    R

    izzy

    .”

     Cp

    lt.

     

    5

    R

    olls

    -Roy

    ce M

    oto

    r

    Ca

    rs

    Li

    mite

    d ow

    ns thre

    e U

    .S. regi

    stere

    d

    t

    r de

    m rk

    s

    re

    leva

    nt to

    th

    is ac

    tion—

    tw

    o “RO

    LLS

    -RO

    YCE

    ” tr de

    m r

    ks  

    Reg. N

    os. 32

    5 19

    5

    3

     148

     743

      an

    d

    o

    ne “R

    R

    Ba

    dge

    ” trad

    ema

    rk

     Reg

    . No.

    197

     089

      .  Cp

    lt.

     

    1

    0

    Ro

    lls-

    Royc

    e

    M

    oto

    r

    Car

    s N

    A, L

    LC is

    li

    cens

    ed to

    use

    the tr

    dem

     rks

    in

    co

    nnec

    tion

    w

    ith the

    di

    strib

    utio

    n and

    s

    ale

    of Roll

    s-Ro

    yce ve

    hicl

    es.  C

    plt.

     

    1

    T

    he

    RO

    LL

    S-RO

    YC

    E

    tr

    dem

     rks

    ha

    ve bee

    n

    us

    ed

    in

    th

    e U

    .S. in

    co

    nne

    ction

    wit

    h

    automobiles

    since

    1935;

    the

    RR

    badge

    has been

    in

    use since

    1905.

     Cplt.

     

    13-

    1

    Pla

    intif

    fs alleg

    e th t

    the

    se tr

     dem

     rk

    s are “

    fam

    ous

    an

    d

    d

    istin

    ctiv

    e” and

    t

    h t o

    ne

    way

    R

    olls

    -Ro

    yce ma

    kes

    us

    e

    of

    th

    e

    mark

    s is b

    y licen

    sing

    t

    hem

    .

     Cp

    lt.

     

    18

    ,

    1

    5

    P

    laint

    iffs all

    ege th

    t Da

    vis

    re

    cord

    s

    a

    nd s

    ells

    mu

    sic

    und

    er the stag

    e n

    ame

    “R

    olls

    Ro

    yce Rizz

    y” a

    nd

    th

     t

    he

    adv

    ertis

    es h

    is m

    usic

    unde

    r

    th

     t

    nam

    e

    on

    his

    YouT

    ube

    ch

    anne

    l.  

    Cplt

    .

     

    19

    T

    hey also c

    onte

    nd

    th t

    D

    avis sell

    s s

    hirts t

    h t

    co

    ntai

    n the

    wor

    ds

    “T

    eam Rol

    ls R

    oyc

    e”

    thro

    ugh his

    onlin

    e

    store

     

    http

    ://ro

    llsro

    ycer

    izzy.

    spre

    adsh

    irt.c

    om.

     

    Id.

    The

    y

    a

    lso al

    lege

    th

    t h

    e

    ma

    kes us

    e

    of

    the

    RR

    Ba

    dge.

     S

    ee

    Cplt

    .

     

    22

     

    Plai

    ntiffs se

    nt D

    avis mul

    tip le ce

    ase

    an

    d

    des i

    st

    le

    tter

    s

    re

    que

    sting th

     t h

    e

    s

    top

    u

    sing

    the

    s

    tage

    nam

    e “R

    olls R

    oyc

    e

    R

    izzy

    ” an

    d

    ins

    truc

    ting him to

    di

    scon

    tinu

    e a

    ny othe

    r u

    se o

    f

    pla

    intif

    fs’ mar

    ks.  Cp

    lt.

     

    20

     

    Pla

    intif

    fs c

    onte

    nd

    th

    t

    Davis

    has

    n

    ever

    thel

    ess c

    onti

    nued us

    ing th

    eir

    m

    arks—

    fo

    r

    e

    xam

    ple 

    by

    p

    ostin

    g

    a phot

    ogra

    ph

    on In

    stag

    ram

    wear

    ing a

    Team Ro

    lls

    Roy

    ce” sh

    irt

    an

    d

    a

    ca

    p

    di

    splay

    ing

    the

    RR

    ba

    dge.

     C

    plt.

     

    2

    2

    Pla

    intif

    fs

    als

    o al

    lege th

    t

    Dav

    is

    p

    osted

    ref

    eren

    ces

    to

    this law

    suit

    o

    n

    I

    nstag

    ram

    .

     

    Dkt.

    No

    . 9

    -2

     

    16 H

    e

    c

    ontin

    ues to u

    se

    th

    e

    sta

    ge

    nam

    e “

    Roll

    s R

    oyc

    e

    R

    izz

    y.”

     Dk

    t.

    N

    o.

    9-2

     

    17

     

    Pla

    intif

    fs

    do

    n

    ot

    requ

    est

    any

    mo

    ney dam

    age

    s. Ra

    ther 

    the

    y

    as

    k

    the

    cour

    t

    for a

    pe

    rma

    nent

    inj

    uncti

    on 

    rest

    raini

    ng Dav

    is

    from

    usin

    g

    thei

    r tr

    adem

    ark

    s.

    They

    also

    ask the Court

    to

    order defendant

    to

    remove

    any such

    tr dem rks

    f

    rom

    hi

    s

     us

    ines

    s

    and

    web

    site

    and file

    wi

    th

    the

    Cou

    rt

    an

    o

    rder

    set

    ting

    for t

    h his

    2

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 22 PageID: 173

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    3/22

    compliance.

     See Dkt.

    No.

    9-4

    pp.

    2-3)

    II. DISCUSSION

    A.   ntry

    of

    Default

    Judgment

    “[Tjhe entry of a

    default judgment is

    left

    primarily

    to

    the discretion of

    the

    district court.” Hritz v.

    Woma Corp., 732 F.2d

    1178,

    1180

     3d

    Cir.

    1984)  citing

    Tozer

    v.

    Charles

    A.

    Krause

    Milling Co.,

    189 F.2d 242, 244  3d

    Cir.

    1951)).

    Because the entry of a

    default

    judgment

    prevents the

    resolution of

    claims

    on

    the

    merits, “this

    court

    does

    not favor entry of defaults

    and default

    judgments.”

    United

    States

    v.

     55,518.05

    in

    U S

    Currency,

    728 F.2d

    192,

    194  3d Cir.

    1984).

    Thus,

    before entering default

    judgment, the Court must

    determine whether

    the

    “unchallenged facts

    constitute

    a

    legitimate cause of

    action”

    so

    that

    default

    judgment

    would

    be permissible.

    DirecTV,

    Inc.

    v.

    Asher, Civ. No.

    03-1969, 2006

    WL

    680533, at

     1

     D.N.J.

    Mar.14, 2006) citing Wright,

    Miller,

    Kane,

    1OA

    Federal

    Practice and

    Procedure:

    Civil 3d

     

    2688, at

    58—59 63).

    “[D]efendants are

    deemed

    to

    have admitted the

    factual

    allegations of the

    Complaint

    by

    virtue of

    their default, except those factual allegations related

    to

    the amount

    of

    damages.”

    Doe

    v. Simone,

    Civ.

    No. 12-5825,

    2013

    WL

    3772532,

    at

     2

     D.N.J.

    July

    17,

    2013). While

    “courts must accept the

    plaintiffs well-

    pleaded factual allegations as

    true,” they “need not accept

    the

    plaintiffs

    factual

    allegations regarding

    damages as true.” Id.  citing Chanel,

    Inc. v.

    Gordashevsky,

    558

    F.Supp.2d 532, 536

     D.N.J. 2008)).

    Moreover, if

    a

    court

    finds

    evidentiary support to be

    lacking, i t may order

    or

    permit a plaintiff

    seeking

    default judgment to

    provide additional

    evidence

    in

    support of the

    allegations. Doe, 2013 WL

    3772532,

    at

     

    2.

    1. Prerequisites

    Before a court may

    enter

    default

    judgment against a

    defendant, the

    plaintiff

    must have properly

    served

    the summons and complaint,

    and

    the

    defendant

    must

    have failed

    to

    file an answer or

    otherwise respond to the

    complaint

    within

    the

    time provided

    by

    the

    Federal Rules, which

    is

    twenty-one

    days.

    See Gold Kist, Inc. v.

    Laurinburg

    Oil Co

    Inc.,

    756

    F.2d

    14, 18—19  3d

    Cir.

    3

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 22 PageID: 174

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    4/22

    19

    85 ; FE

     

    R.

    Civ

    . P.

    12

     a .

    Here

    ,

    D

    avis w

    as prop

    erly

    s

    erve

    d

    and

    has faile

    d

    to

    resp

    ond

    to

    t

    he

    com

    plai

    nt.

     See

    D

    kt.

    No

    .

    9

    -2

     

    1

    0)

    De

    fend

    ant’

    s tim

    e

    t

    o

    r

    espo

    nd to the

    co

    mpla

    int h 

    s lo

    ng sin

    ce

    exp

    ired

    .

    A

    ccor

    ding

    ly,

     

    am sa

    tisfi

    ed th t

    th

    e

    prer

    equi

    sites

    to

    filin

    g

    a

    de

    fault

    ju

    dgm

    ent a

    re

    met.

    Se

    e

    G

    old

    Kist

    ,

    In

    c., 75

    6

    F.2d

     t

    18—

    19.

    2.

    Def

    ault judg

    men

    t f ct

    ors

      mu

    st now

    ev

    alua

    te th

    e

    follo

    win

    g

    thr

    ee

    fa

    ctor

    s:

     

    1)

    wh

    ethe

    r

    th

    e

    par

    ty

    su

    bjec

    t to

    d

    efau

    lt

    h

    as

    a

    m

    erit

    oriou

    s

    d

    efen

    se  2)

    th

    e pre

    judic

    e suf

    fered

    by

    the

    party

    seeking

    default

    and

     3)

    the culpability

    of

    the party subject

    to

    default.

    D

    oug Bra

    dy  Inc. v

    . N

    .J. Bld

    g.

    L

    abor

    ers

    S

    tate

    wide Fu

    nds

      250

    F.R

    .D. 17

    1, 177

     D

    .N.J

    .

    20

    08

    cit

    ing Em

    cas

    co

    Ins.

    Co

    .

    v

    Sa

    mbri

    ck,

    83

    4 F.2

    d

    7

    1, 74  3d

    C

    ir.

    1987

      . Thes

    e

    f

    acto

    rs w

    eigh i

    n fav

    or of

    e

    ntry o

    f

    a

    defa

    ult

    ju

    dgm

    ent

    as to

    cer

    tain

    of

    p

    lain

    tiffs’ a

    llege

    d

    c

    ause

    s

    of act

    ion .

    a.

     

    eri

    torio

    us Def

    ense

    As to

    the first

    factor

    am disadvantaged

    of

    course

    by

    the

    lack

    of

    any

    su

    bmis

    sion

    b

    y

    th

    e defe

    nda

    nt but

     

    w

    ill

    re

    view

    t

    he

    r

    ecor

    d th

    t is

    befo

    re me.

    See

    C

    oach

    ,

    In

    c.

    v Ba

    gs

     

    A

    cces

    sorie

    C

    iv.

    No. 10-

    2555

      20

    11 W

    L 1

    882

    403 

    t

     

    D.N.

    J.

    M

    ay

    17,

    2

    011 

    “Be

    caus

    e

    the D

    efen

    dant

    s di

    d

    n

    ot

    res

    pond

     

    th

    e C

    our

    t

    ca

    nnot deter

    min

    e whe

    ther the D

    efen

    dants

    had

    me

    ritor

    ious de

    fens

    es

    t

    h t a

    re

    no

    t ref

    lecte

    d

    i

    n the

    reco

    rd.” 

    . Ac

    cept

    ing the

    factu

    al

    al

    lega

    tions

    a

    s

    true

      as

     

    m

    ust

    a

    m sat

    isfied

    th

    t

    pla

    intiff

    s

    h

    ave

    st

    ated cer

    tain

    of the

    ir

    c

    laim

    s for r

    elief

    .

     

    find

    th

    t

    p

    lain

    tiffs are

    e

    ntitl

    ed

    t

    o

    ju

    dgm

    ent on the

    ir

    clai

    ms

    for

    trad

    ema

    rk

    dil

    utio

    n und

    er fede

    ral a

    nd

    stat

    e

    law

     C

    oun

    ts

     

    a

    nd IV

    ). My

    inde

    pend

    ent

    revie

    w

    of

    the

    re

    cord

    has

    n

    ot rev

    eale

    d

    a

    ny re

    ason

    to bel

    ieve th t

    thes

    e cla

    ims

    a

    re

    le

    gall

    y f

    lawe

    d

    or

    th

    t the

    re is

    a

    m

    erito

    riou

    s

    d

    efen

    se to

    t

    hem

    . Se

    e

    Do

    e, 20

    13

    WL

    37

    725

    32

    at

     

    5.

      will

    decl

    ine

    to

    gran

    t

    p

    lain

    tiffs ju

    dgm

    ent

    a

    s

    t

    o th

    eir

    rema

    inin

    g

    cl

    aims

    .

    4

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 4 of 22 PageID: 175

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    5/22

      Trademark

    Infringement

    Unfair Competition

    and

    False Designation

    of Origin

    Under

    the

    Lanham

    Act

    Section

    32,

    15

    U.S.C.

    Section

    1114 1 :

     1

    Any

    person

    who

    shall,

    without

    the consent of

    the

    registrant--

     a

    use

    in

    commerce

    any

    reproduction,

    counterfeit,

    copy,

    or

    colorable

    imitation

    of

    a

    registered

    mark

    in

    connection

    with

    the sale, offering

    for

    sale, distribution,

    or advertising

    of

    any

    goods or

    services

    on

    or

    in

    connection

    with which

    such

    use

    is

    likely

    to

    cause

    confusion, or

    to

    cause

    mistake, or

    to

    deceive

    Shall be liable in

    a

    civil

    action

    by

    the

    registrant

    15

    U.S.C.A.

    §

    11

    14 1 a .

    Furthermore,

    the Lanham Act

    Section 43 a

    proscribes unfair

    competition

    or,

    as

    the statute

    refers to

    it, “false

    designation of

    origin”

    or

    “false description.”

    15 U.S.C.A.

    §

    1125 a .

    The

    statute

    provides

    that:

     1

    Any

    person who, on or

    in connection

    with any goods

    or

    services,

    or any

    container for

    goods, uses in

    commerce any

    word,

    term,

    name,

    symbol,

    or device,

    or

    any

    combination thereof,

    or

    any

    false

    designation

    of

    origin, false

    or

    misleading

    description

    of

    fact, or

    false or

    misleading

    representation of

    fact,

    which—

     A

    is

    likely

    to cause confusion,

    or to

    cause

    mistake,

    or to

    deceive

    as

    to

    the

    affiliation,

    connection,

    or association

    of

    such person

    with

    another person,

    or

    as

    to

    the

    origin,

    sponsorship,

    or

    approval

    of

    his

    or her

    goods,

    services, or

    commercial

    activities

    by

    another

    person

    shall

    be liable

    in

    a civil

    action by

    any person who

    believes

    that

    he

    or

    she

    is

    or is likely

    to be

    damaged

    by

    such

    act.

    15 U.S.C.A.

    §

    1125 a 1 A .

    To

    state

    a claim

    for

    trademark

    infringement,

    15

    U.S.C.

    §

    1114 1 ,

    and

    unfair

    competition/false

    designation

    of

    origin,

    15

    U.S.C.

    §

     

    125 a 1 ,

    under

    the

    5

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 5 of 22 PageID: 176

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    6/22

    L

    an

    h

    am A

    ct, a

    p

    lai

    nt

    iff

    m

    u

    st

    sh

    ow

    th

    re

    e ele

    m

    en

    ts

    :

     1 )

    it ha

    s

    a v

    alid a

    n

    d l

    egall

    y

    pr

    ot

    ec

    tab

    le

    m

    ar

    k;

     2)

    it

    owns

    th

    e

    m

    ar

    k; an

    d  3)

    t

    he

    d

    efe

    nd

     

    nts

    us

    e

    of th

    e

    m

    a

    rk

    to

    ide

    ntify

    goo

    ds

    or

    se

    rv

    ic

    es

    c

    us

    es

    a l

    ikeli

    hood

    o

    f

    co

    nf

    us

    io

    n.”

    A   H

    Sp

    or

    ts

    we

    ar

    ,

    In

    c.

    v.

    Vict

    oria

    ’s

    Sec

    ret

    Sto

    res,

    I

    nc.,

    2

    3

    7

    F.3d

    19

    8,

    21

    0

     3

    d

    Cir.

    2

    000)

     “W

    e

    m

    ea

    su

    re

    fe

    de

    ra

    l tr 

    de

    m

     r

    k

    i

    nf

    rin

    ge

    m

    en

    t, 15

    U.S

    .C.

     

    1

    114

    ,

    a

    n

    d

    f

    ed

    er

    al

    un

    fa

    ir

    c

    om

    p

    eti

    tio

    n, 15

    U.S.

    C.

     

    1

    25 a

    ) 1)

     A),

    by

    ide

    n

    tic

    al s

    tan

    d

    ard

    s”

     ;

    See

    al

    so

    Cha

    nel,

    Inc

    .

    v.

    Mato

    s,

    Civ. No

    .

    14

    -3

    50

    9,

    2

    01

    5

    W

    L 4

    77

    30

    7

    2,

    a

    t

    *

    10

    n.6

     D.

    N.J. Au

    g. 13

    ,

    2015

    )

     “C

    ourts

    in t

    he T

    hi

    rd

    Ci

    rcu

    it

    co

    ns

    id

    er

    cla

    im

    s

    for

    tr

    ad

    em

    a

    rk in

    fr

    ing

    e

    me

    nt

    an

    d

    fo

    r fa

    lse

    d

    e

    sig

    na

    ti

    on

    o

    f

    ori

    gin

    u

    nd

    e

    r an i

    de

    nt

    ica

    l

    standard.” 

    citing

    A  H

    Sportswear .

    A

    plaintiff bears the burden

    of

    proving

    th

    es

    e ele

    m

    en

    ts

    .

    A

    s

    to the

    f

    irs

    t

    ele

    m

    en

    t,

    p

    lai

    nt

    iff

    s

    h

    a

    ve

    alle

    ged

    o

    wn

    e

    rsh

    ip of

    th

    re

    e

    tr 

    d

    em

     r

    ks

    an

    d

    p

    rovi

    de

    re

    g

    ist

    rat

    io

    n

    nu

    m

    be

    rs

    a

    nd

    th

    e

    da

    te

    of

    re

    gi

    str

    at

    ion

    for

    ea

    ch

    .  

    See

    C

    plt.

     

    10)

    Plai

    ntiff

    s

    alle

    ge th

     t

    th

    e r

    eg

    ist

    ra

    tio

    ns “wer

    e du

    ly a

    nd

    l

    egall

    y is

    su

    ed

    ,

    a

    re

    v

    alid

    an

    d su

    bs

    is

    tin

    g, a

    nd ar

    e

    inc

    o

    nte

    st

    ab

    le pu

    rsu

     

    nt

    to

    15

    U.

    S.C.

     

    160

    5.”

     I

    d.

     

    11)

    The

    y h

    av

    e

    als

    o

    p

    rovi

    ded

    th

    e

    c

    er

    tif

    ica

    te

    s of

    r

    eg

    ist

    ra

    tio

    n.

     S

    ee D

    kt.

    N

    o.

    1

    1) A

    “ce

    rtific

    ate

    of

    registration issued

    by

    the United

    S

    ta

    te

    s P

    ate

    nt

    a

    nd

    Tr

    ad

    em

    a

    rk

    O

    ffic

    e

    c

    on

    st

    itu

    te

    s pr

    im

    a fa

    cie

    e

    vide

    nce

    of

    th

    e

    v

    alidi

    ty a

    nd ow

    n

    ers

    hi

    p of a

    d

    is

    pu

    te

    d

    m

    ar

    k.

    ” C

    oach

    ,

    In

    c.

    v. C

    osm

    etic

    Ho

    use  

    C

    iv.

    No.

    1

    0-

    27

    94

    ,

    2

    011

    WL 1

    21

    13

    9

    0,

    *2

     D

    .N.J.

    M

    ar.

    29

    201

    1)  ce

    rtific

    ate

    o

    f

    re

    gi

    str

    at

    ion

    by

    U.

    S.

    P

    ate

    n

    t

    a

    nd

    Tr

    ad

    em

    a

    rk Offi

    ce

    is

    su

    ff

    ic

    ien

    t

    t

    o

    e

    sta

    bl

    is

    h

    t

    he

    f

    irs

    t an

    d s

    ec

    on

    d e

    le

    me

    nt

    s of

    tra

    de

    m

    ar

    k

    in

    fr

    in

    ge

    me

    n

    t a

    nd

    un

    fa

    ir

    co

    m

    pe

    tit

    io

    n

    cl

    aims

    ).

    As

    su

    ch

    ,

      a

    m

    s

    ati

    sf

    ied t

    t th

    e f

    irs

    t t

    wo e

    le

    m

    en

    ts

    are

    m

    et.

    A

    s

    to t

    he

    th

    ir

    d

    e

    lem

    e

    nt

    , a

    “lik

    elih

    ood

    of con

    fusio

    n”

    ex

    is

    ts

    w

    h

    er

    e

    “c

    on

    su

    m

    er

    s

    vi

    ewin

    g t

    he

    m

    a

    rk

    wou

    ld p

    ro

    ba

    b

    ly as

    su

    m

    e

    th 

    t t

    he

    pr

    od

    uc

    t

    o

    r

    servi

    ce

    it

    re

    pr

    es

    en

    ts is

    as

    so

    ci

    ate

    d with

    th

    e so

    ur

    ce

    o

    f

    a

    di

    ffe

    re

    nt p

    ro

    d

    uc

    t

    or

    serv

    ice id

    en

    tif

    ie

    d

    by

    a si

    mi

    la

    r m

    a

    rk

    .”

    Co

    ach,

    2011

    W

    L 12

    11

    3

    90

    , at

    *3

     q

    uo

    tin

    g

    Ford

    M

    otor

    C

    o.

    v. Su

    mmi

    t

    Moto

    r Pro

    ds.

    Inc

    . 93

    0 F

    .2

    d 2

    77

    ,

    2

    92

     3d

    C

    ir. 19

    91))

    .

    C

    o

    ur

    ts c

    on

    si

    de

    r a v

    ar

    ie

    ty of f

    ac

    tor

    s w

    he

    n as

    se

    ss

    ing w

    h

    eth

    e

    r

    tw

    o

    m

    a

    rk

    s

    are

    likely

    to

    cause consumer confusion.

    In

    this Circuit these factors include,

     ut

    a

    re

    n

    ot

    li

    mi

    te

    d t

    o

    6

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 6 of 22 PageID: 177

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    7/22

     1 )

    the

    degr

    ee of

    sim

    ilarit

    y betw

    een

    t

    he

    o

    wne

    r’s

    mar

    k

    an

    d the

    a

    lleg

    ed

    inf

    ringi

    ng

    mar

    k;

     2)

    t

    he

    st

    reng

    th

    o

    f

    th

    e ow

    ner’

    s

    m

    ark;

     3)

    t

    he

    pric

    e

    of

    t

    he

    g

    oods

    a

    nd

    oth

    er fac

    tors

    ind

    icati

    ve of

    the

    c

    are

    and

    a

    ttent

    ion exp

    ecte

    d of co

    nsum

    ers w

    hen m

    akin

    g a

    purc

    hase

    ;

     4

    )

    th

    e leng

    th

    of tim

    e the d

    efen

    dant

    has

    use

    d the

    ma

    rk

    wi

    thou

    t

    evid

    ence

    of ac

    tual

    c

    onfu

    sion

    ari

    sing;

     5)

    t

    he

    in

    ten t

    of the

    defen

    dan

    t

    in ado

    pting

    the ma

    rk;

     6 ) th

    e ev

    iden

    ce of

    act

    ual

    co

    nfus

    ion;

     7) wh

    ethe

    r the

    g

    oods

    ,

    th

    ough not com

    petin

    g, are

    marketed through the

    same

    channels

    of

    trade and advertised

    th

    roug

    h

    t

    he

    s

    ame

    me

    dia;

     8)

    th

    e exte

    nt

    to

    w

    hich

    th

    e

    t

    arge

    ts

    of

    the

    p

    arti

    es’ s

    ales e

    ffor

    ts

    are

    the sam

    e;  9

    ) the

    rel

    ation

    ship

    of

    th

    e

    g

    ood

    s

    in

    the

    min

    ds o

    f

    c

    onsu

    mer

    s

    beca

    use o

    f

    the sim

    ilar

    ity of

    f

    unct

    ion;

     1

    0) othe

    r fa

    ctor

    s

    s

    ugge

    stin

    g tha

    t

    th

    e

    con

    sumi

    ng

    pub

    lic

    migh

    t exp

    ect

    the

    pr

    ior

    own

    er to

    man

    ufac

    ture a

    pr

    odu

    ct

    in

    the defe

    nda

    nt’s m

    ark

    et,

    or

    tha

    t

    he

    is

    like

    ly

    to

    ex

    pan

    d

    in

    to

    t t

    market.

    Free

    dom C

    ard,

    I

    nc. v. JP

    Mo

    rgan Ch

    ase

     

    Co.,

    43

    2

    F

    .3d

    4

    63,

    471

     3

    d

    Ci

    r.

    2

    005

    qu

    otin

    g

    Inte

    rpac

    e Co

    rp.

    v.

    L

    app, In

    c., 7

    21 F

    .2d

    460, 4

    63

     3d

    C

    ir. 19

    83  .

    The

    Thir

    d

    Circ

    uit

    has “r

    epea

    tedl

    y ins

    isted

    that the

    La

    pp

    fact

    ors

    a

    re

    n

    ot

    to be

    m

    ech

    anic

    ally tall

    ied,

    b

    ut ra th

    er t

    t they

    are

    t

    ools

    to gu

    ide

    a qua

    litat

    ive

    de

    cisi

    on.” A  

    H

    Sp

    orts

    wear

    ,

    Inc.

    ,

    237

    F

    .3d

    at

    216

    . Rev

    iewi

    ng

    th

    ose

    fa

    ctors

    ,  

    find

    that

    they

    point

    in

    bo

    th

    d

    irec

    tion

    s. O

    vera

    ll,   c

    ann

    ot f

    ind th

    at defe

    nda

    nt’s

    u

    se of

    th

    e a

    llege

    dly infr

    ingi

    ng ma

    rks i

    s

    li

    kely

    t

    o ca

    use c

    ons

    ume

    r

    con

    fusi

    on.

    The

    sin

    gle mos

    t

    im

    port

    ant fac

    tor

    in de

    term

    inin

    g likel

    ihoo

    d

    of

    co

    nfus

    ion

    i

    s ma

    rk

    s

    imil

    arity

    .” Id. Ma

    rks

    are co

    nfus

    ingly sim

    ilar if

    “ord

    inary

    con

    sum

    ers

    w

    oul

    d

    li

    kely co

    nclu

    de t

    t

    [the tw

    o pr

    odu

    cts]

    sh

    are

    a

    co

    mm

    on s

    ourc

    e,

    affil

    iatio

    n,

    c

    onn

    ectio

    n,

    or spo

    nsor

    ship

    .” Id

    .  q

    uotin

    g Fis

    ons H

    ortic

    ultur

    e, Inc

    .

    v

    .

     i  o

    ro

    In

    dus.

    , I

    nc., 30 F

    .3d 4

    66, 4

    77

     

    3d

    C

    ir. 19

    94 

    . W

    here the

    g

    ood

    s

    o

    r

    s

    ervi

    ces

    are

    no

    t

    in

    d

    irect c

    omp

    etitio

    n, as

    is t

    he

    ca

    se

    here

    , th

    e deg

    ree

    of

    7

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 7 of 22 PageID: 178

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    8/22

    si

    mi

    la

    rit

    y

    r

    eq

    u

    ire

    d

    to

    p

    rov

    e

    li

    kelih

    ood

    of co

    nf

    us

    io

    n

    is h

    ig

    he

    r

    th

     n

    for

    s

    im

    ila

    r

    pro

    d

    uc

    ts. Kos

    Ph

    arm

    .,

    In

    c. v.

    A

    n

    drx C

    orp.

    ,

    36

    9 F.

    3d

    7

    00

    ,

    7

    13  3

    d

    C

    ir.

    2

    004

    c

    it

    ati

    on o

    mit

    ted .

    He

    re,

    Roll

    s-Ro

    yce

    h

    as

    de

    mo

    n

    str

    at

    ed

    t

    t

    Dav

    is

    is

    u

    si

    ng

    m

    ar

    ks

    no

    t jus

    t

    s

    im

    ila

    r to—

    bu

    t,

    in

    fa

    ct, i

    de

    nt

    ic

    al to

    th

    e

    ir ma

    rk

    s.

    The

    refor

    e,

    th

    is el

    em

    en

    t w

    eig

    hs

    st

    ro

    ng

    ly

    in

    f

    avor

    o

    f pla

    intif

    fs.

    Pla

    intif

    f

    a

    lso

    al

    leges

    th

     t

    th

    e

    m

    ar

    ks ar

    e “

    fa

    mo

    u

    s

    a

    n

    d

    di

    st

    inc

    ti

    ve

    .”

     

    Cplt

    .

     

    1

    8 T

    o ev

    a

    lua

    te

    th

    is

    fac

    to

    r,

    a

    co

    ur

    t

    m

    u

    st “ex

    ami

    ne:  1

    th

    e m

    a

    rk

    ’s

    di

    st

    inc

    ti

    ve

    ne

    ss

    or

    co

    nc

    ep

    tu

    al s

    tre

    n

    gth

     th

    e in

    he

    re

    nt fe

    at

    ur

    es

    of th

    e m

    a

    rk

      an

    d

     2

     

    it

    s

    c

    om

    m

    e

    rc

    ial st

    re

    ng

    th  fa

    ct

    ua

    l evid

    enc

    e

    of

    m

    ar

    ke

    tp

    la

    ce rec

    ogni

    tion 

    .”

    Freedom

    Card,

    Inc.,

    432

    F.3d

    at

    472  citation

    omitted .

    “The

    co

    nc

    ep

    tu

    al

    s

    tre

    ng

    th

    o

    f

    a

    m

    a

    rk i

    s m

    e

    as

    ur

    ed b

    y cl

    as

    sif

    yi

    ng

    th

    e

    m

    a

    rk

    in

    on

    e o

    f

    f

    ou

    r

    c

    ate

    g

    or

    ies r

    an

    g

    ing

    from

    t

    he

    s

    tro

    n

    ge

    st

    to t

    he

    we

    ak

    e

    st: “ 

    1 a

    rb

    itr

    ar

    y or

    fan

    c

    ifu

    l

     s

    uc

    h

    as

    “K

    OD

    AK”

     ;

     2

    s

    ug

    ge

    st

    iv

    e

     

    su

    ch

    as “C

    OPP

    ERT

    ON

    E” ;

     

    3

    d

    es

    cr

    ipt

    iv

    e

     s

    uc

    h as

    “SE

    CU

    RIT

    Y

    CEN

    TE

    R” ;

    a

    nd  4

     

    ge

    neri

    c

     su

    c

    h as

    “D

    IET

    CH

    OCO

    LA

    TE

    FU

    DGE

    SO

    DA

    ” Id

    .

    To d

    e

    ter

    m

    ine

    co

    m

    m

    er

    cia

    l

    s

    tr

    en

    gt

    h, c

    ou

    rts

    e

    xa

    mi

    ne the

    ma

    rk

    et

    pl

    ac

    e re

    co

    gn

    it

    ion

    of

    th

    e

    tr

    ad

    em

    a

    rk

    .

     

    f

    ind

    th

    t Ro

    lls-R

    oyc

    e’s

    marks

    are

    conceptually

    strong.

    They

    appear

    to

    fall

    i

    nt

    o th

    e

    s

    tro

    ng

    es

    t

    c

    on

    ce

    p

    tua

    l c

    ate

    go

    ry of

    a

    rb

    itr

    ar

    y or f

    an

    cif

    ul m

    a

    rk

    s. Se

    e

    Pro

    Foo

    t,

    Inc. v.

    MSD

    Co

    ns

    um

    e

    r C

    are,

    Inc.

    , Ci

    v.

    No.

    1

    1-

    70

    79

    ,

    2

    01

    2

    WL

    22

    6

    29

    04

    ,

    at

    *8

     D.

    N.J.

     u

    ne

    14,

    2

    012

      ”A

    rbitr

    ary

    or

    fan

    cifu

    l

    m

    ar

    ks u

    se

    ter

    m

    s

    t

    t

    ne

    ith

    er

    d

    es

    cr

    ib

    e

    no

    r

    s

    ug

    ge

    st

    a

    ny

    th

    in

    g a

    bo

    ut the p

    ro

    du

    ct

    ; t

    he

    y b

    ea

    r no lo

    gica

    l

    or

    su

    gg

    es

    ti

    ve

    r

    el

    ati

    on

    to

    th

    e a

    c

    tua

    l c

    ha

    ra

    ct

    er

    ist

    ics

    o

    f th

    e go

    ods

    .” .

    T

    he

    m

    ark

    s ar

    e

    c

    er

    ta

    inl

    y n

    ot d

    es

    cr

    ip

    tiv

    e or

    gene

    ric; a

    t

    t

    he

    very

    le

    as

    t

    th

    ey

    a

    re s

    ug

    ge

    sti

    ve

     

    pe

    rh

    ap

    s

    “R

    olls

    we

    akly s

    ug

    ge

    st

    s th

    e id

    ea

    of

    wh

    e

    els

    o

    n

    p

    av

    em

    e

    nt

    ,

    bu

    t

    it

    is

    also

    som

    eon

    e’s

    nam

    e .

    W

    ith re

    sp

    ec

    t to

    c

    om

    m

    e

    rc

    ial s

    tre

    ng

    th

    ,

    p

    la

    in

    tif

    fs

    alle

    ge t

    t t

    he

    m

    ar

    ks

    a

    re

    “w

    ell

    kn

    o

    wn

    an

    d

    u

    ni

    qu

    e

    a

    n

    d

    ar

    e

    id

    en

    tif

    ie

    d

    b

    y

    the

    pu

    bl

    ic

    sol

    ely

    wi

    th

    Plai

    ntiffs

    a

    nd

    th

    ei

    r pr

    od

    uc

    ts a

    nd

    servi

    ces.

     

    Cplt

    .

     

    1

    Pla

    intif

    fs  

    ss

    ert

    th

     t

    the

    m

    a

    rk

    s

    ha

    v

    e

    b

    ee

    n

    u

    se

    d

    f

    or n

    ea

    rly

    a

    c

    en

    tu

    ry

    aro

    u

    nd

    t

    he

    worl

    d, an

    d t

    t t

    he

    y sp

    en

    d

    “l

    arge su

    m

    s

    of m

    one

    y

    for

    wo

    rldw

    ide

    ad

    ver

    tising

    of

    th

    e

    ir pro

    d

    uc

    ts.

     

    Id.

    8

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 8 of 22 PageID: 179

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    9/22

    Co

    mm

    ercia

    l

    str

    eng

    th

    is

    a

    lso

    imp

    lied

    by

    pl

    ainti

    ff’s

    alleg

    atio

    ns

    th t

    th

    ey

    lic

    ense

    t

    heir

    m

    arks

    .

     Cplt.

     

    15

    W

    hile

    sp

    ecifi

    c fig

    ures wo

    uld

    help

    to su

    ppo

    rt

    plain

    tiffs

    con

    tent

    ions

     for

    ex

    amp

    le,

    sal

    es num

    ber

    s,

    co

    mpa

    ny

    va

    luati

    on, etc.

     ,

    I

    will

    a

    ccep

    t

    th  t

    th

    e

    Ro

    lls-R

    oyc

    e

    m

    ark

    s

    hav

    e com

    merc

    ial viab

    ility.

    As

    to

    th

    e th

    ird fac

    tor  purc

    hase

    rs’

    car

    e

    an

    d so

    phist

    ica ti

    on ,

    I

    find th 

    t

    t

    his

    fa

    ctor p

    oints

    in fav

    or of

    Da

    vis.

    See Sa

    bins

    a

    Corp. v

    Cre

    ative Co

    mpo

    unds

    ,

    LL

    609 F.3d

    175

    ,

    1

    86

     3d

    Cir. 201

    0 n

    otin

    g

    th t

    “cou

    rts have fo

    und ther

    e

    is

    no

    t

    a

    stro

    ng

    like

    liho

    od

    of

    c

    onfu

    sion  

    [w

    ]her

    e

    the re

    leva

    nt pro

    duct

    s

    a

    re

    ex

    pens

    ive, or the

    buy

    er

    cla

    ss con

    sists

    of

    so

    phis

    tica

    ted or pro

    fess

    iona

    l

    pur

    chas

    ers”

     

    inte

    rnal q

    uo ta

    tions

    a

    nd

    cita

    tion omit

    ted .

    Roll

    s-Ro

    yce

    veh

    icle

    s

    are

    hig

    h-en

    d,

    luxu

    ry ca

    rs th

      t

    ar

    e e

    xpen

    sive

     

    proh

    ibiti

    vely

    so

    for

    mo

    st

    of

    the

    g

    ene

    ral pu

    blic 

    .

    Ac

    cord

    ingl

    y,

     

    mus

    t ass

    ume t

    h  t

    indi

    vidu

    als in

    t

    he

    ma

    rket to

    pur

    chas

    e such

    vehi

    cles exer

    cise

    a

    hig

    her s

    t nd

      rd of car

    e th n

    t

    he

    a

    vera

    ge

    co

    nsum

    er

    an

    d

    w

    ould t

    here

    fore b

    e

    le

    ss

    su

    scep

    tible

    to con

    fusio

    n by D

    avis

    ’s

    use

    of

    th

    e

    m rk

    s

    In

    r

    egar

    d to the

    fifth fac

    tor, D

    avi

    s’s i

    nten

    t

    in

    usi

    ng

    th

    e ma

    rks, I

    find

    th t

    this

    factor

    points

    in

    both directions

    but

    ultimately

    favors

    Davis.

    “Plaintiffs

    alleg

    e th

    t

    Da

    vis

    “int

    ends

    by

    h

    is

    una

    utho

    rized use

    of

    the

    Rol

    ls-R

    oyce

    mark

    and

    RR

    Ba

    dge to trad

    e off

    th

    e

    goo

    dwi

    ll

    of Pl

    ainti

    ffs’

    bus

    ines

    s.”  Cplt.

     

    25

    agr

    ee

    th  t

    pla

    intif

    f

    app

    ears

    to

    hav

    e

    in

    tent

    iona

    lly used ex

    act

    r

    eplic

    as

    of plai

    ntiff

    s’

    mar

    ks to

    prom

    ote

    his

    mu

    sic

    car

    eer.

    In

    ad

    ditio

    n,

    th

    e

    ev

    idenc

    e

    sup

    port

    s

    pla

    intif

    fs’

    c

    onte

    ntio

    n

    th

     t Da

    vis

    c

    onti

    nued

    to

    do so

    even af

    ter

    pl

    ainti

    ffs

    in

    form

    ed him

    of thei

    r

    o

    wne

    rsh i

    p.  See

    C

    plt.

     

    2

    0-22

     

    am

    a

    lso

    in

    clin

    ed to agre

    e

    th

    t Dav

    is

    in

    tend

    ed

    to

    ben

    efit

    f

    rom

    the

    repu

    tatio

    n

    an

    d

    h

    igh-

    end luxu

    ry

    ima

    ge

    of

    Rol

    ls-Ro

    yce

    ,

    i.e.,

    their

    “goodwill”  

    ass

    ume

    t

    his

    is w

    hy

    he ado

    pted

    the

    ir

    The

    fou

    rth and s

    ixth fa

    ctor

    s

    a

    re the

    leng

    th

    of time

    the defen

    dan

    t

    ha

    s used

    the

    m

    ark

    w

    itho

    ut evidence

    of act

    ual c

    onfu

    sion

    arisi

    ng

    and

    the evidence

    of

    act

    ual

    confusion.

    Th

    oug

    h

    evidence

    of a

    ctual co

    nfusi

    on

    is

    no

    t re

    quir

    ed,

    su

    ch evidence is

    “highly

    pro

    bativ

    e

    of

    a likeithood

    of confusion.”

    Sa

    bins

    a

    Corp., 609

    F.3d

    at 187. The

    reco

    rd does no

    t

    con

    tain

    evidence

    relat

    ing

    to

    ei

    ther

    factor.

    This may be

    be

    caus

    e

    p

    laint

    iff

    has

    not had th

    e opp

    ortun

    ity to cond

    uct

    discovery as

    to

    actu

    al

    c

    onfu

    sion du

    e

    to Davis’s

    lack

    of

    appearance

    in

    this

    case. In any event,

     

    do

    not grant

    these

    factors

    weight

    in my

    an

    alysi

    s.

    9

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 9 of 22 PageID: 180

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    10/22

    mark

    s a

    nd not

    a

    l

    esse

    r bran

    d of vehi

    cle . How

    eve

    r,

    “[a]

    defe

    ndan

    t’s mer

    e

    inte

    nt

    to

    copy”

    w

    ithou

    t

    “int

    ent

    to

    c

    onfu

    se

    cu

    stom

    ers” is n

    ot enou

    gh to fin

    d

    in

    plain

    tiffs

    fa

    vor. Sab

    insa

    Corp.,

    60

    9 F.3d

     t

    187

     e

    mph

    asis

    in

    ori

    gina

    l

    int

    erna

    l

    qu

    otat

    ions and

    cita

    tion

    o

    mit

    ted .

    Pl

    ainti

    ffs

    have

    no

    t d

    emo

    nstra

    ted

    th t

    Dav

    is

    int

    ende

    d to

    ca

    use

    con

    fusio

    n

    abou

    t

    his

    re

    latio

    nshi

    p

    wit

    h Ro

    lls-R

    oyce

    .

    In

    ad

    ditio

    n, D

    avis

    post

    ing

    ab

    out

    the

    litig

    ation on so

    cial m

    edia wo

    uld seem

    to

    u

    nder

     u t

    th t a

    rgum

    ent

    .

     Se

    e

    D

    kt.

    No. 9-

    2

     

    16

    T

    her

    efore

    ,

    b

    ecau

    se p

    lain

    tiffs

    h

    ave

    no

    t d

    emo

    nstra

    ted

    a

    n

    inte

    nt

    to c

    onfu

    se,

      fin

    d t

    h t this

    fa

    ctor

    lea

    ns

    s

    light

    ly

    i

    n

    fa

    vor

    of Da

    vis.

    T

    he

    seve

    nth,

    eigh

    th,

    a

    nd ninth fa

    ctor

    s ad

    dres

    s

    the

    “n

    atur

    e of the

    s

    ervi

    ces

    p

    rovi

    ded,

    t

    he c

    usto

    mers targe

    ted, an

    d th

    e

    me

    thod

    s used to

    rea

    ch

    th

    ose

    cu

    stom

    ers.”

    Prim

    epoi

    nt,

    L.L.C.

    v P

    rime

    Pay

    ,

    Inc.,

    5

    45

    F.

    Sup

    p. 2d 426

    ,

    444

     D.

    N.J.

    2

    008 add

    ressi

    ng th

    ese

    fac

    tors to

    geth

    er .

    T

    hes

    e

    f

    acto

    rs

    w

    eigh in

    Dav

    is’s

    favo

    r.

    T

    he

    grea

    ter

    the s

    imila

    rity

    in

    adve

    rtisi

    ng

    a

    nd

    m

    ark

    eting ca

    mpa

    igns

    , the

    gre

    ate r th

    e l

    ikeli

    hood

    o

    f

    c

    onfu

    sion

    .”

    Chec

    kpo

    int Sy

    s., Inc.,

    26

    9

    F.

    3d

     t

    288—89.

    “Wh

    en

    th

    e p

    artie

    s

    ta

    rget t

    heir sales

    eff

    orts to the sam

    e

    gr

    oup

    o

    f

    c

    onsu

    mer

    s,

    there

    is

    a greater

    likelihood

    of

    confusion

    between

    two

    marks.” Sabinsa

    Corp.,

    609 F

    .3d  t 188.

    Th

    e pa

    rties

    op

    erate in

    en

    tirel

    y

    s

    epar

    ate ind

    ustr

    ies

    a

    nd

    of

    fer

    dissi

    mila

    r

    pr

    odu

    cts

    and se

    rvic

    es.

    T

    her

    e is no ev

    iden

    ce

    th

     t

    the

    pa

    r ties tar

    get

    their

    sale

    s effo

    rts to

    th

    e sam

    e m

    ark

    et

    s

    egm

    ent,

    or t

    h t

    th

    e p

    arti

    es

    use th

    e

    sam

    e

    me

    thod

    s

    of pro

    moti

    on

    to

    targe

    t

    thes

    e

    co

    nsum

    ers

    ;

    i

    n fa

    ct,

    th

    e

    e

    vide

    nce

    t

    ends

    to

    p

    oint

    in the o

    ppo

    site dire

    ctio

    n.  See

    Dkt. Nos.

    1-2;

    9-

    2

    Ex. 7

    -8 .

    O

    vera

    ll, the

    se

    fa

    ctors

    do

    not

    lead m

    e to

    beli

    eve

    th

    t Da

    vis’s use o

    f

    th

    e

    mark

    s

    w

    oul

    d ca

    use

    con

    sum

    er conf

    usion

    .

    U

    pon revie

    w

    of

    the

    relev

    ant

    fa

    ctors

    ,   find th

     t

    p

    laint

    iffs

    h

    ave not

    estab

    lish

    ed

    a

    l

    ikeli

    hood

    o

    f

    co

    nfus

    ion

    du

    e

    to Da

    vis’

    s

    use

    of

    the m

    ark

    s.

    The mos

    t

    like

    ly

    risk o

    f

    c

    onfu

    sion

    ,

    in

    my view,

    is

    t

    he ris

    k th

     t

    a

    cons

    ume

    r

    m

    ay

    b

    elie

    ve

    th

    t the

    re

    is

    an “

    asso

    ciati

    on,”

    “spo

    nsor

    ship

    ,”

    o

    r relat

    ions

    hip of “app

    rov

    al”

    b

    etwe

    en

    R

    olls

    Royce a

    nd Da

    vis.

    15

    U.S.

    C.A.

     

    1125 a 1 A .

    Fo

    r exam

    ple

    ,

    Davis’s

    actions

    could lead

    an

    unsuspe ting

    consumer

    to

    believe

    he

    has

    obta

    ined perm

    issi

    on

    fro

    m

    Rol

    ls-R

    oyce

    to

    us

    e their mar

    ks,

    or

    pe

    rhap

    s

    e

    ven

    th

     t

    10

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 10 of 22 PageID: 181

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    11/22

    Case 2:15 cv 00417 KM JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 12 of 22 PageID: 183

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    12/22

    mark

      r

    egar

    dles

    s

    of

    th

    e p

    rese

    nce

    or a

    bsen

    ce

    o

    f ac

    tual

    or

    likel

    y

    con

    fusi

    on

    of com

    petit

    ion

    or of a

    ctua

    l

    econ

    omi

    c in

    jury

    .

    15

    U.S

    .C.

     

    12

    5 c 

    1 . The

    sta

    tute

    defin

    es a

    fa

    mou

    s

    ma

    rk as

    a

    mar

    k

    t t is

    wide

    ly

    re

    cogn

    ized

    by

    th

    e g

    ene

    ral c

    ons

    umin

    g pub

    lic

    of

    the

    U

    nite

    d

    State

    s

    as

    a

    d

    esig

    natio

    n

    of

    s

    ourc

    e of

    t

    he goo

    ds or

    serv

    ices

    of the

    m

    ark

    ’s

    ow

    ner.”

     

    12

    5 c

    2

    A .

    Fu

    rther

    mor

    e

    S

    ectio

    n

      12

    5 c

      2 

    B defi

    nes

    dilut

    ion b

    y bl

    urrin

    g”

    as

    asso

    ciatio

    n a

    risin

    g from

    th

    e

    sim

    ilarit

    y be

    twe

    en

    a m

    ark o

    r

    trad

    e nam

    e

    and

    a

    fam

    ous

    m

    ark t

    ha t

    imp

    airs

    th

    e dis

    tinc

    tiven

    ess o

    f t

    he fam

    ous mar

    k.”

    S

    ectio

    n

     

    125 

    c 2

    C  def

    ines

    dilut

    ion by

    tarn

    ishm

    ent”

    as an “

    asso

    ciati

    on

    arisi

    ng

    f

    rom

    the similarity between a

    mark

    or

    trade name and a famous

    mark

    t  t

    harms

    th

    e

    rep

    utati

    on of

    the

    fam

    ous ma

    rk.”

    “T

    he

    fede

    ral

    caus

    e of act

    ion f

    or

    tra

    dem

    ark dil

    utio

    n

    gran

    ts

    extra

    prote

    ctio

    n to str

    ong

    wel

    l-rec

    ogni

    zed ma

    rks

    even

    in

    the

    ab

    senc

    e

    o

    f

    a

    likel

    ihoo

    d

    of

    cons

    ume

    r

    con

    fusio

    n—

    the

    c

    lassi

    cal te

    st f

    or

    trade

    mar

    k infri

    ngem

    ent

    —if

    the

    de

    fend

    ant’s

    us

    e

    dim

    inish

    es or

    d

    ilute

    s

    t

    he s

    tron

    g iden

    tifica

    tion

    valu

    e

    asso

    ciat

    ed

    wi

    th the

    p

    lain

    tif fs fa

    mou

    s m

    ark.”

    Tim

    es M

    irr

    or

    Ma

    gazi

    nes I

    nc.

    v

    Las

    V

    egas

    Sp

    orts

    N

    ews

     

    L

    .L.C

    ., 212 F

    .3d

    1

    57, 16

    3

     3d

    Cir. 2

    000

     . Th

    e

    T

    hird

    Circ

    uit

    has

    pr

    ovid

    ed

    t

    t

    a

    pla

    intiff m

    ust p

    rov

    e

    the

    follo

    win

    g elem

    ents

    to es

    tabli

    sh

    a

    prim

    a

    fa

    cie cl

    aim

    un

    der th

    e

    fe

    dera

    l

    dilu

    tion s

    tatu

    te:

     

    The p

    laint

    iff i

    s

    the

    o

    wne

    r

    o

    f

    a

    ma

    rk

    that q

    uali

    fies as a

    famo

    us”

    m

    ark

    in

    light

    o

    f the

    tot

    ality

    of t

    he ei

    ght f

    acto

    rs li

    sted

    in

     

    12

    5 c

    1 ,

    2.

    T

    he

    def

    enda

    nt is

    mak

    ing co

    mme

    rcia

    l u

    se

    in

    i

    nters

    tate co

    mme

    rce

    of a

    mark

    or

    trad

    e

    na

    me

    3

    .

    De

    fend

    ant’

    s

    use

    beg

    an

    afte

    r

    th

    e

    pla

    intif

    fs m

    ark be

    cam

    e

    fam

    ous

    and

    4. De

    fend

    ant’

    s us

    e caus

    es

    d

    ilut

    ion

    b

    y

    less

    ening

    th

    e

    ca

    paci

    ty

    of t

    he

    plain

    tiffs

    ma

    rk

    t

    o iden

    tiiy

    an

    d di

    sting

    uish

    g

    ood

    s

    o

    r se

    rvic

    es.

    Id.

    A

    s

    dis

    cuss

    ed

    sup

    ra p

    lain

    tiffs

    have

    prov

    ided e

    vide

    nce

    of th

    e firs

    t

    ele

    men

    t.

     

    2

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 12 of 22 PageID: 183

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 13 of 22 PageID: 184

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    13/22

    That evidence

    consists

    of

    trademark

    registrations establishing ownership

    of

    a

    valid and

    legally

    protectable

    mark.

    See

    Cplt.

     

    10-11;

    Dkt.

    No . 11; see also

    Coach,

    2011 WL 1211390, at

    *2 .

    As

    to whether

    the

    marks

    are famous

    under

    15

    U.S.C.

    §

     

    125 c) 1),

      find

    th t

    they are.

    The Third

    Circuit has considered the

    following

    factors when determining whether a

    mark

    is

    distinctive or famous:

     A

    the

    degree

    of

    inherent

    or

    acquired

    distinctiveness of

    the

    mark;

     B

    the

    duration and

    extent

    of

    use

    of

    the

    mark in

    connection

    with

    the

    goods

    or services

    with

    which the mark is used;  C

    the

    duration

    and extent

    of

    advertising

    and publicity

    of

    the

    mark;

     D

    the

    geographical extent

    of

    the

    trading

    area

    in which

    the

    mark is used;

     E the

    channels of

    trade

    for

    the

    goods

    or

    services with which the

    mark

    is

    used;

     F the degree

    of

    recognition

    of

    the

    mark in

    the

    trading

    areas and

    channels

    of

    trade used by

    the

    mark

    owner and

    the

    person against whom the

    injunction

    is

    sought;  G the n ture

    and extent

    of

    use

    of

    the

    same

    or similar marks

    by

    third parties.

    Id.

     citing

    15

    U.S.C.

    §

    1125 c) 1) A)- H)).

      take

    judicial

    notice

    th t

    the name

    “Rolls-Royce”

    is

    well

    established

    and

    very

    well

    known. Plaintiffs’ marks are distinctive, as

    outlined

    in the

    preceding

    section discussing infringement,

    supra.

    In

    addition,

    plaintiffs allege

    th t

    they

    have

    spent

    “well over three

    qu rters of

    a century

    producing

    goods

    and

    rendering services recognized

    in

    the United

    States

    and throughout

    the

    world

    to

    be

    of

    the highest

    quality.”

     Cplt.

    16

    They

     ssert th t

    they have

    “continuously”

    used

    the

    ROLLS-ROYCE

    marks and RR

    Badge

    since

    1935

    and

    1905,

    respectively.

     Cplt.

     

    12-13)

    As

    a

    result, plaintiffs

    say, their

    tr dem rks

    “have become

    well

    known

    and

    unique and

    are

    identified

    by

    the

    public solely

    with

    Plaintiffs

    and their products and services.”

     Cplt.

    17

    Plaintiffs contend

    th t

    they

    “enjoy

    an exceedingly valuable reputation”

    around

    the

    world

    both

    with

    pur h sers of

    their products as

    well

    as other

    members of the public.

     Cplt.

    18).

    In

    sum,

    plaintiffs

    allege

    th t

    their trademarks

    are “famous

    and

    distinctive.”  Id .

    19 note th t Davis’s choice

    to use

    Rolls-Royce’s marks

    to

    13

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 13 of 22 PageID: 184

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 14 of 22 PageID: 185

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    14/22

    prom

    ote

    his m

    usic

    c

    aree

    r

    w

    ould itse

    lf

    ten

    d t

    o co

    rrob

    orat

    e

    pla

    intif

    fs’

    po

    int.

    In

    sh

    ort,  

    fin

    d

    th

    t t

    he

    mar

    ks are fam

    ous w

    ithi

    n

    t

    he

    m

    ean

    ing

    of the

    sta

    tute

    .

    The

    se

    cond

    el

    emen

    t

    is

    de

    fend

    ant’s

    use

    of

    the

    mar

    k “in

    in

    terst

      te

    com

    me

    rce.”

    Se

    e T

    ime

    s

    M

    irr

    or

    M

    agazines,

    Inc.,

    212 F.3d

    at

    163.

    Even in

    the case

    o

    f a def

    ault

    judg

    men

    t, the

    re

    m

    ust

    be so

    me s

    how

    ing,

    bu

    t

    t

    he

    “q

    uant

    um

    of

    co

    mm

    ercia

    l

    act

    ivity

    need

    ed

    to

    dem

    ons

    trate

    in

    terst

      te com

    me

    rce

    is

    no

    t

    gre

    at,”

    C

    oach

    ,

    Inc.,

    2

    011 WL

    18

    8240

    3,

     t

     

    4

    Con

    gress

    inten

    ded t

    o

    regu

    late to

    the

    Con

    stitu

    tion

    al limit

    .

    See

    15

    U.S

    .C.

     

    1

    127  “

    The

    wo

    rd

    ‘c

    omm

    erc

    e’

    m

    ean

    s al

    l

    com

    me

    rce w

    hich

    m

    ay lawf

    ully be

    regu

    lated

    by

    Co

    ngre

    ss” . Thu

    s,

    ev

    en an

     ntr  

    s

    tate

    in

    fring

    eme

    nt

    may

    be

    reac

    hed u

    nde

    r

    th

    e

    La

    nha

    m

    A

    ct

    if it

    s

    “a

    s

    ubst

      nti

    l ef

    fect,

    e

    cono

    mic

    or ot

    herw

    ise,

    upo

    n

    p

    lain

    tiff’s

    i

    nter

    state us

    e

    of

    the

    m

    ark

    .” See

    McC

    arth

    y

    on Tra

    dem

    arks

     

    2

    5:56

    .

    H

    ere, p

    lain

    tiffs al

    lege t

    h  t

    D

    avis

    is

    a m

    usi

    cian

    ,

    th

    t h

    e em

    ploy

    s

    the

    s

    tage

    na

    me “

    Rolls

    Roy

    ce R

    izzy

    ,”

    th

    t

    h

    e

    a

    dver

    tises h

    is rec

    ordin

    gs und

    er

    th

    t nam

    e o

    n

    h

    is

    Yo

    uTu

    be

    ch

    ann

    el,

    a

    nd th

    t

    he

    se

    lls

    Tea

    m

    R

    olls

    Ro

    yce”

    sh

    irt s

    in

    his

    on

    line sto

    re.  C

    plt.

    9

    Thes

    e

    a

    ctivi

    ties,

    by

    the

    ir

    v

    ery

    n tu

    re 

    in

    volv

    e

    in

    ters

    t te c

    omm

    erce

    .

     

    also am

    satisfied

    th t

    the third element

    of

    plaintiff’s

    prima

    facie

    case

    of

    dilu

    tion is me

    t. A

    cco

    rding

    to

    pla

    intiff

    s, D

    avis

    bega

    n

    usin

    g

    th

    eir tr

      dem

      rk

    s

    a

    fter

    th

    e m

    arks

    beca

    me

    f

    amo

    us.

     Se

    e

    C

    plt.

    1

    6, 20

    -23

    . T

    he rec

    ord

    s

    uppo

    rts

    su

    ch

    a

    co

    nten

    tion

    .

    T

    he

    ma

    rks hav

    e been r

    egis

    tered

    sin

    ce 1

    905

    and

    193

    5, and

    pla

    intif

    fs’

    alle

    gatio

    ns

    ab

    out D

    avi

    s’s misu

    se

    of the

    mark

    s

    stem

    from

    co

    ndu

    ct in

    201

    4.

     Se

    e

    Cp

    lt.

     

    13

    -14,

    19

    -22

    Fin

    ally,

     

    find th

     t th t

    t

    he four

    th elem

    ent

    ,

    t

    h t

    “D

    efen

    dant

    ’s

    us

    e

    c

    ause

    s

    dilu

    tion

    by l

    esse

    ning th

    e capa

    city

    o

    f

    the

    plai

    ntiff

    s

    m

    ark

    to id

    enti

    fy

    and

    dist

    ingu

    ish

    good

    s or

    serv

    ices,

    is m

    et.

    Ti

    mes M

    irro

    r

    Ma

    gazi

    nes,

    21

    2

    F

    .3d

      t

    1

    63.

    D

    iluti

    on oc

    curs w

    hen

    t

    here

    i

    s

    “b

    lurr

    ing” or “ta

    rnish

    ing

    o

    f the

    t

    radem

    ark

    .

    Wo

    rld W

    rest

    ling

    Fed’

    n E

    ntm

    ’t

    I

    nc.   Big

    Do

    g Ho

    ldin

    gs,

    In

    c.,

    280 F. Sup

    p.

    2d

    41

    3,

    4

    41

     W

    .D

    . Pa.

    200

    3 .

    Bl

    urrin

    g occ

    urs wh

    en de

    fend

    ant’

    s

    us

    e

    of

    the

    m

    ark

    “cau

    ses th

    e id

    entif

    ying

    feat

    ures o

    f pla

    intiff

    ’s ma

    rk

    to

    bec

    ome

    vagu

    e an

    d

    les

    s

    distinctive.”

    Id.

     citing

    Times Mirror

    Magazines

    Inc.

     

    Las

    Vegas

    Sports

    News,

    212

    F.3

    d 157

    ,

    16

    3

     3

    d

    Cir.

    2

    000

    .

    De

    fend

    ant’

    s

    use

    of

    th

    e m

    ark

    les

    sens

    14

    Case 2:15 cv 00417 KM JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 14 of 22 PageID: 185

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 15 of 22 PageID: 186

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    15/22

    plaintiff’s

    ability to

    use the mark to

    “serve as

    a

    unique identifier” of

    its product.

    Id.

    Tarnishment

    “occurs

    when the

    effect of

    defendant’s use of

    a

    mark is

    to

    dilute

    by

    tarnishing

    or

    degrading

    positive

    associations

    of

    the

    mark and

    diluting

    the

    distinctive

    quality

    of

    the mark.”

    Id. at

    442

     citing

    McCarthy

    on Trademarks

    and

    Unfair

    Competition

     

    24.95 .

    “A mark

    is

    tarnished, therefore, when

    it

    is

    improperly

    associated with

    an

    inferior or

    offensive

    product or

    service

    presenting

    a danger

    that

    customers

    will

    form

    unfavorable associations

    with

    the

    mark.”

    Id.

    at 443  emphasis

    in

    original

    quoting

    Avery Dennison Corp.

    v.

    Sumpton,

    189

    F.3d

    868,

    881

      th

    Cir. 1999

    internal quotations

    and

    citation

    omitted ;

    See also Hormel

    Foods

    Corp. v. Jim

    Henson

    Prods.,

    Inc.,

    73

    F.3d 497,

    507  2d

    Cir.

    1996 ”The

    sine qua non of

    tarnishment

    is

    a finding

    that plaintiffs

    mark will suffer negative

    associations through defendant’s

    use.” .

    Here,

    plaintiffs

    base their

    dilution

    claim on

    allegations

    that

    they have

    “suffered damage to

    the goodwill

    associated with their

    ROLLS-ROYCE

    trademark

    and

    RR Badge.”

     Cplt.

    32

    Plaintiffs

    assert that

    they have

    a

    “valuable reputation” in

    the

    U.S.

    and

    around

    the

    world,

    and

    they argue

    that

    if

    defendant’s

    actions continue,

    he

    will

    “irreparably

    harm

    Plaintiffs

    and the

    goodwill they enjoy under their

    marks.”  Dkt.

    No.

    9-1

    pp.

    4-5

    This

    appears

    to

    be a

    claim based on

    tarnishment.

      find that plaintiffs

    have sufficiently

    alleged

    their tarnishment claim.

    Specifically,

    plaintiffs

    have

    submitted materials

    from Davis’s

    social

    media

    account, advertisements,

    and promotional

    materials that reflect

    language and

    imagery

    that

    could create

    negative associations with plaintiffs’

    products.

    Hormel,

    73 F.3d at 507. For

    example,

    plaintiffs

    have submitted an

    advertisement

    for

    an

    event “hosted

    by

    Rolls Royce

    Rizzy,”

    entitled

    “Call

    of

    Booty,” which features

    a scantily-clad

    woman and

    advertises

    a

    “Booty

    Shaking

    Contest.”

     Dkt.

    No. 1-2

    p.

    14

    Plaintiffs

    have submitted

    other

    materials

    that

    promote

    “Rolls

    Royce

    Rizzy” and reference

    his

    “hit

    singles” entitled

    “Gah

    Damn”

    and “Hoe in You.” Dkt. No.

    9-3

    p.

    62

    The

    apparent cover

    of

    Davis’s album,

    also

    advertised

    under

    the name

    “Rolls Royce Rizzy,” is

    named

    “Pimp’n”

    and

    features

    a

    parental

    advisory

    for

    explicit

    lyrics.  Id .

    p.

    73

    Under

    these facts,

     

    15

    g g

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 16 of 22 PageID: 187

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    16/22

    find t

    ha t pla in

    tiffs

    ha

    ve m

    et

    the

    fo

    urth

    e

    leme

    nt

    of

    the

    ir pr

    ima

    fa

    cie case

    o

    f

    dilu

    tion

    und

    er

    a

    tar

    nish

    men

    t

    theo

    ry.

    In

    add

    ition

    ,

    “C

    our

    ts in

    th

    is

    dist

    rict

    have

    foun

    d

    liab

    ility

    und

    er fe

    dera

    l

    law

    to

    b

    e su

    ffici

    ent

    to

    esta

    blish

    liab

    ility

    u

    nde

    r

    state

    law.” Coach, Inc.

    v.

    Cosmetic

    H

    ous

    e, C

    iv. No

    .

    10-2

    794,

    201

    1 WL

    1

    2113

    90,

    at 5

     

    D.N

    .J.

    Mar

    .

    29,

    2

    011

    ; S

    ee

    als

    o 80

    0-JR C

    igar

    , I

    nc. v.

    GoT

    o.co

    m,

    Inc

    .,

    43

    7 F.

    Su

    pp.

    2

    d 2

    73,

    29

    4

     D.N

    .J.

    2

    006 

    Dilu

    tion

    claim

    s

    un

    der Ne

    w

    Jers

    ey law a

    re su

    bjec

    t to

    the

    sam

    e

    co

    nsid

    erati

    ons a

    s

    feder

    al d

    ilut

    ion

    cl

    aims

    .” .

    A

    ccor

    ding

    ly,  

    w

    ill

    ente

    r defa

    ult

    jud

    gme

    nt

    as

    to

    p

    laint

    iffs’ c

    laim

    o

    f fede

    ral

    trade

    mar

    k

    dilu

    tion

    un

    der the

    La

    nham

    A

    ct  C

    oun

    t

    I , as

    w

    ell as

    Ne

    w

    Jer

    sey

    law

     

    Coun

    t

    IV

     .

    i

    ii.

    Unju

    st en

    rich

    men

    t

    U

    nder

    New

    Jers

    ey

    la

    w,

    t

    o

    e

    stab

    lish

    unj

    us t

    enri

    chme

    nt, a

    p

    lain

    tiff

    mus

    t

    sho

    w

     1 

    “that

    de

    fend

    ant

    re

    ceiv

    ed a

    bene

    fit”

    a

    nd

     2

     

    “tha

    t rete

    ntion

    of that

    be

    nefi

    t w

    itho

    ut

    pay

    men

    t w

    oul

    d b

    e

    unj

    ust.”

    VR

    G Co

    rp.

    v.

    G

    KN Re

    alty

    C

    orp.

    , 1

    35

    N.J.

    539,

    554

     1994 

    internal citations

    omitted ;

    Alboyacian

    v.

    BPProds.

    N.

    Am.

    ,

    C

    iv.

    No.

    01-5

    143,

    20

    11 W

    L5

    8730

    39,

    at

    D.

    N.J. No

    v. 22,

    20

    11 .

    P

    lain

    tiffs

    alle

    ge

    in

    ve

    ry

    ge

    nera

    l

    te

    rms

    t

    ha t

    Dav

    is

    is ma

    king

    u

    se

    of, an

    d

    profi

    ting

    fro

    m,

    Plai

    ntiff

    s’

    RO

    LLS

    -RO

    YCE

    and

    RR B

    adge

    ma

    rk w

    itho

    ut

    perm

    issi

    on

    from

    P

    laint

    iffs.

    ”  

    Cpl

    t.

     

    60 

    How

    ever

    , plai

    ntiff

    s

    have

    n

    ot

    s

    et

    for

    th

    any

    fact

    s

    estab

    lish

    ing that

    Da

    vis

    has pr

    ofite

    d

    as

    a m

    usi

    cian

    as

    a

    dire

    ct re

    sult

    o

    f his

    use

    of the

    Ro

    lls-R

    oyc

    e

    ma

    rks

     a

    s

    op

    pose

    d

    to

    his ta

    len t

    o

    r bus

    iness

    acu

    men

     ; n

    or

    ha

    ve

    they

    alleg

    ed any

    fac

    ts

    su

    gges

    ting

    to

    w

    hat

    d

    egre

    e

    or in

    w

    hat

    am

    ou

    nt

    th

    ey

    b

    elie

    ve

    Da

    vis

    ha

    s

    be

    en

    un

    justl

    y enri

    ched

    ;

    nor

    ha

    ve

    th

    ey

    st

    ated

    how

    a ben

    efit

    was

    co

    nfer

    red

    on

    defen

    dan

    t

    with

    the

    e

    xpec

    tatio

    n of pa

    yme

    nt.

    In

    add

    ition

    ,

      no

    te

    that plai

    ntiff

    s

    are not

    re

    ques

    ting m

    onet

    ary

    da

    mag

    es

    in

    this

    a

    ctio

    n,

    on

    ly inj

    unct

    ive

    rel

    ief.  See

    D

    kt. No

    . 9

    p

    .

    Ac

    cord

    ingl

    y,

    I

    w

    ill not

    e

    nter d

    efau

    lt ju

    dgm

    ent

    as to

    plain

    tiffs

    ’ cl

    aim

    of

    un just

    enrichment,

    which

    in

    any event

    is

    superfluous.

     Count

    VII .

    16

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 17 of 22 PageID: 188

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    17/22

    b. P

    reju

    dice

    s

    uffe

    red

    b

    y t

    he

    p r

    ty seek

    ing

    de

    fault

    Sec

    ond,

     

    am

    per

    suad

    ed th t

    plain

    tiffs wou

    ld

    s

    uffer pre

    judi

    ce if defa

    ult

    ju

    dgm

    ent wer

    e den

    ied. D

    avi

    s was pr

    oper

    ly se

    rved

    over

    a

    year

    a

    go,

    ye

    t fa

    iled

    t

    o

     ppe r

    or defend

    himself

    in

    any manner. See

    Team

    ste

    rs Pe

    nsio

    n

    F

    und

    of

    Phi

    lade

    lphia  

    V

    icin

    ity

    v

    . Am.

    H

    elper

    , Inc

    .,

    Ci

    v.

    No

    . 11-

    624,

    20

    11

    WL

    472

    9023

    ,

     t

    *

    4

     D

    .N.J

    . Oc

    t.

    5, 201

    1 ;

    D

    kt.

    N

    o. 9-2

     

    10. Giv

    en d

    efen

    dant

    ’s c

    ontin

    ued

    infri

    ngem

    ent and

    refu

    sal

    to

    r

    espo

    nd

    t

    o

    the c

    omp

    laint

     

    othe

    r

    th

     n poki

    ng

    fu

    n  

    t

    it

    on so

    cial m

    edia

     ,

     

    fin

    d

    th

    t

    pla

    intif

    fs

    w

    ould

    s

    uffer on

    goin

    g harm

    a

    nd

    pre

    judi

    ce

    if

    a

    de

    fault

    jud

    gme

    nt

    were d

    enie

    d.

     

    See

    D

    kt. No

    .

    9

    -2

     

    17

      Plain

    tiffs

    h

    ave

    b

    een pr

    ejud

    iced by

    d

    efen

    dant

    ’s fa

    ilure

    to

    answ

    er

    be

    cau

    se t

    hey h

    ave

    in

    curr

    ed add

    ition

    al cost

    s

    and

    atto

    rney

    s’ fees

    asso

    cia t

    ed

    with

    pro

    tecti

    ng

    their

    righ

    ts and be

    caus

    e

    D

    avis

    ’s fail

    ure

    to app

    ear h s

    im

    ped

    ed plai

    ntiff

    s’ a

    bilit

    y

    to

    proc

    eed

    in

    th

    is ac

    tion

    , incl

    udin

    g it

    s a

    bilit

    y

    to

    ga

    in

    ac

    cess

    to

    rel

    evan

    t dis

    cove

    ry.

    It wo

    uld b

    e ineq

    uita

    ble to

    a

    llow

    D

    avis

    to

    p

    reclu

    de p

    laint

    iffs’

    requ

    este

    d

    relie

    f b

    y

    s

    imp

    ly

    fai

    ling

    to

    a

    ppea

    r.

    c.

    Culpability

    of

    the

    p rty sub ject

    to default

    T

    hird

    ,

     b

    sent

    any

    evid

    enc

    e

    to

    th

    e

    c

    ontr

    ary,

    the

    De

    fend

    ant’

    s

    fai

    lure

    to

    a

    nswe

    r evin

    ces t

    he D

    efe

    ndan

    t’s cu

    lpabi

    lity i

    n

    its

    def

    ault.

    The

    re is

    n

    othi

    ng

    bef

    ore the C

    ourt

    to

    sho

    w

    th t

    the

    Defe

    ndan

    t’s

    f

    ailur

    e

    to

    file a

    n ans

    wer w

    as

    n

    ot

    will

    fully

    ne

    glige

    nt.” Te

    ams

    ters

    Pe

    nsio

    n

    Fu

    nd

    of Ph

    ilade

    lphi

    a

     

    Vi

    cinit

    y,

    2

    011

    WL

    47

    2902

    3,

    at

    *4

     c

    iting

    Pr

    uden

    tial In

    s. C

    o. of

    A

    mer

    ica

    v

    .

    Tay

    lor,

    C

    iv. No.

    08—

    2

    108, 200

    9 WL 536

    403

     

    t

    *1

     D.

    N.J.

    F

    ebru

    ary

    27

    , 20

    09 f

    indi

    ng

    th 

    t whe

    n

    t

    here

    is noth

    ing

    be

    fore

    the

    cou

    rt

    to

    sugg

    est an

    ythin

    g oth

    er t

    h n

    th 

    t

    t

    he

    d

    efen

    dan

    t’s willf

    ul

    n

    eglig

    ence ca

    used

    the defe

    ndan

    t to

    fa

    il

    to

    file

    an

    an

    swer

    , the

    defe

    ndan

    t’s

    con

    duct

    is culp

    able a

    nd

    warr

    ants d

    efau

    lt

    ju

    dgm

    ent

    . D

    efen

    dant

    w

    as

    s

    erve

    d with

    the

    c

    omp

    laint

    back

    on

      n

    u ry

    16

    , 20

    14.  See

    D

    kt. N

    o.

    9-

    2

     

    10  Def

    enda

    nt ha

    s no

    t

    res

    pond

    ed.

    Aga

    in,  

    note th

     t it

    is cle

    ar th

    t

    Dav

    is

    is

    aw

    are

    of

    p

    lain

    tiffs’ s

    uit

    ba

    sed

    on

    his

    soc

    ial m

    edia a

    ctivi

    ty.  See

    D

    kt. N

    o. 9-2

     

    16 

    The

    obvious conclusion

    is

    th t

    Davis

    is

    culpable

    for

    this

    failure

    and unable

    to

    offe

    r

    a

    pla

    usib

    le

    de

    fens

    e.

    17

    Case 2:15-cv-00417-KM-JBC Document 13 Filed 03/11/16 Page 18 of 22 PageID: 189

  • 8/19/2019 Rolls-Royce v. Rolls Royce Rizzy opinion.pdf

    18/22

    A

    cco

    rding

    ly,

      fi

    nd

    th

     t

    t

    he

    en

    try

    o

    f a de

    faul

    t

    judg

    men

    t

    is

    appr

    opri

    ate

    as

    to C

    ount

    s

    I

    and

    IV .

    B. R

    eme

    dies

    Pl

    ainti

    ffs

    re

    ques

    t

    th

      t

    the

    C

    ourt

    ente

    r

    a

    p

    erm

    anen

    t

    inju

    ncti

    on

    aga

    ins t

    Davi

    s

    enjo

    ining

    h

    im

    f

    rom

    an

    y

    fur

    ther

    us

    e

    of th

    eir

    ma

    rks.

    T

    he S

    upre

    me C

    ourt

    req

    uire

    s,

    in g

    ener

    al,

    th

    t

    any

    p

    lain

    tiff

    se

    ekin

    g

    a

    perm

    ane

    nt in

    junc

    tion

    sho

    w

     1

    th 

    t it

    s

    suff

    ered

    an

    irrep

    arab

    le

    in

    jury;

     

    2 t

    t rem

    edie

    s

    a

    vaila

    ble

    at

    law

    , s

    uch

    as m

    onet

    ary

    da

    mag

    es,

    are

    in

    ade

    quat

    e

    to

    compensate

    for

    th  t

    injury ;

     3

    that, considering the balance

    of

    h

     r s

    hips

    bet

    ween

    t

    he

    plain

    tiff

    and

    de

    fend

    ant,

    a

    re

    med

    y

    in

    e

    quity

    is war

    rante

    d;

    and

     

    4

    th

    t the

    pu

    blic

    inter

    est

    w

    oul

    d no

    t b

    e

    disse

    rved

    by a

    pe

    rma

    nent

    in

    junc

    tion

    .

    eBa

    y,

    I

    nc. v.

    M

    erc

    Exch

    ang

    e,

    LL

    C,

    547

    U.S

    . 388

    ,

    391

     200

    6

    cit

    ation

    s

    om

    itted

     .

    The

    Co

    urt

    ma

    y

    issu

    e

    a

    pe

    rma

    nent

    inju

    nctio

    n

    in th

    e

    co

    ntext

    o

    f

    a

    de

    fault

    ju

    dgm

    ent

    wh

    ere

    t

    hese

    re

    quire

    men

    ts

    are

    m

    et.

    Se

    e

    C

    oach

    , In

    c. v

    .

    Oc

    ean

    Po

    int

    Gifts,

    Civ.

    No.

    09-42

    1

    5,

    2010

    WL

    2

    521

    444,

    at

    *1

    0

     

    D.N

    .J.

     u

    ne 14,

    20

    10 .

    The

    La

    nham

    Act

    in

    pa

    rticu

    lar

    co

    ntain

    s

    a

    s

    pecif

    ic

    statu

    tory

    auth

    oriza

    tion

    f

    or

    perm

    ane

    nt i

    njun

    ctive

    r

    elief

    to p

    reve

    nt

    or

    restr

    ain

    t

    rade

    mark

    d

    ilutio

    n.

    15 U.S.

    C.

    §

    111

    6 a