Luxottica Grp., S.p.A. v. 111 Pit Stop, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Pending is Plaintiffs Luxottica Group, S.p.A. and Oakley, Inc.'s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Defendants 111 Pit Stop, Inc. and Pareshbai Patel. (Doc. No. 27). Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff's motion, and the deadline to do so has passed.

I. Procedural Requirements for Entry of Default Judgment

Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants on March 7, 2019. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiffs properly served Defendants with process and, after Defendants failed to plead or otherwise defend this action, the Clerk of Court entered default against 111 Pit Stop, Inc. on May 22, 2019 (Doc. No. 15) and against Pareshbai Patel on June 28, 2019 (Doc. No. 19). Defendants have not taken any action to set aside the entry of default.

Because neither Defendant has made an appearance in this case, the notice requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) is not triggered. Plaintiffs have submitted an affidavit stating that Pareshbai Patel is not in the military service and is not an infant or incompetent person. (Doc. No. 18, Attach. 2 at 1-2). Therefore, Plaintiffs meet the procedural requirements for obtaining entry of default judgment.

Page 2

II. Facts

Upon entry of default, well-pleaded allegations relating to liability are taken as true. In Re: Family Resorts of Am., Inc., 972 F.2d 347, *4 (6th Cir. 1992); Kelley v. Carr, 567 F. Supp. 831, 840 (W.D. Mich. 1983) (citing Thomas v. Wooster, 114 U.S. 104 (1885)) ("On a motion for entry of default judgment..., allegations of fact in the complaint are taken as true unless they are contradictory on the face of the document."). Although the decision to grant or deny a request for default judgment lies within the court's sound discretion, if the allegations in a complaint are sufficient to support a finding of liability as to the defendant(s), the court should enter judgment. Ford Motor Co. v. Cross, 441 F. Supp. 2d 837, 848 (E.D. Mich. 2006).

The facts alleged in the complaint are as follows: Plaintiff Luxottica Group S.p.A. ("Luxottica Group") is a corporation duly organized under the laws of Italy with its principal place of business in Milan, Italy. (Doc. No. 1, Compl., Parties, ¶ 1).¹ Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. ("Oakley") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, having its principal place of business at One Icon, Foothill Ranch, California. (Id. ¶ 2). Oakley is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Luxottica. (Id.)

Luxottica Group is engaged in the manufacture, marketing and sale of premium, luxury and sports eyewear throughout the world. (Id. at Factual Allegations, Sec. A, ¶ 1). Luxottica Group's proprietary brands include Ray-Ban, the world's most famous sun eyewear brand, which prominently displays its famous federally registered Ray-Ban trademarks. (Id. ¶ 4). Plaintiffs hold registrations for their respective trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with the advertisement and sale of their products, including Ray-Ban (collectively

Page 3

referred to herein as "Ray-Ban Trademarks"). (Id. at Sec. A, ¶ 6 and Sec. B., ¶ 5). Plaintiff's Ray-Ban Trademarks are identified below:

Luxottica Group has expended substantial time, money, and other resources in developing, advertising, and otherwise promoting the Ray-Ban Trademarks. (Doc. No. 27, Attach. 1 ¶ 6). As a result, products bearing the Ray-Ban Trademarks are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public, and the trade as being high quality products sourced from Luxottica Group, and have acquired strong secondary meaning. (Id.) Luxottica Group continues to invest substantial money in promoting its products and services offered under its brands, including the Ray-Ban Trademarks. (Id.)

Oakley is an internationally recognized manufacturer, distributor and retailer of sports eyewear, apparel, footwear, outerwear, jackets, accessories and other merchandise, all of which prominently display its famous, internationally recognized and federally registered Oakley trademarks. (Id., Sec. B., ¶¶ 1 and 3). Oakley products have become enormously popular and even iconic, driven by Oakley's arduous quality standards and innovative design. (Doc. No. 27, Attach.

Page 4

1 ¶ 8). Oakley has expended millions of dollars annually in advertising, promoting and marketing featuring the Oakley trademarks. (Id.) Among the purchasing public, authentic Oakley products are instantly recognizable as such. (Id.) In the United States and around the world, the Oakley brand has come to symbolize high quality, and Oakley products are among the most recognizable eyewear, headwear, footwear, outerwear, jackets and apparel in the world. (Id.) Oakley owns and has used a variety of federally registered trademarks in connection with the advertisement and sale of its products, including Oakley. (Id. ¶ 10). Those trademarks are identified below (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Oakley Trademarks"):