Max'is Creations v. Schedule A (1:23-cv-20341) - RNR On Motion For Default Judgment

Case 1:23-cv-20341-RNS Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2023 Page 1 of 46
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 23-CV-20341-SCOLA/GOODMAN
MAX’IS CREATIONS INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS,

AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,
Defendants.
____________________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
In this intellectual property action, Max’is Creations Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “MCINC”)
filed a motion for default judgment against Defendants Nos. “3 to 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20,
23, 24, 26, 27, 29 to 45, 47 to 57, 59 to 66, 68, 70 to 85, 87 to 116, 118 to 120, 122, 123, 125 to
136, 138, 144, 152, and 156 to 159, 161 to 189” (collectively, “Defaulted Defendants”) 1 in
1 The Undersigned notes that two Defendants -- Mansa Resales (No. 70) and
Shenzhen Aisiting Technology (No. 156) -- have since been dismissed from this action.
See [ECF Nos. 73; 75; 77; 78]. Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to a default final judgment as
to Defendants Nos. 70 and 156 and they are excluded from the definition of “Defaulted
Defendants” and from the recommendations made in this document. In a supplemental
filing, Plaintiff agreed that Defendants Nos. 70 and 156 should be excluded from the relief
requested in its motion. See [ECF No. 84, p. 9 (“Plaintiff is not seeking default judgment
Schedule A of the Complaint. [ECF No. 74, p. 3]. 2 The Defaulted Defendants have not
filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion (or otherwise participated in this lawsuit), and the
response deadline has now expired.
Senior United States District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. referred this motion to the
Undersigned “for a report and recommendations, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of the Local Magistrate Judge Rules.”
[ECF No. 76]. As explained below, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that the
Motion be granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
Plaintiff filed a five-count Complaint against all Defendants alleging trademark
infringement pursuant to section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, (Count I); false
designation of origin pursuant to section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a),
(Count II); common law unfair competition (Count III); common law trademark
infringement (Count IV); copyright infringement (Count V); and patent infringement
(Count VI). [ECF No. 1].
against [Defendants Nos. 70 and 156] and they are excluded from the definition of the
Default[ed] Defendants in Plaintiff’s Motion.”)].
2 This Report and Recommendations cites to the page numbers automatically

assigned by the Court’s CM/ECF system, appearing at the top, right-hand corner in the
header of each page.
2
The Complaint alleges that MCINC is the exclusive licensee of certain federally
registered trademarks, including “THE MUG WITH A HOOP!, THE MUG WITH A
GLOVE!, THE SOCCER MUG WITH A GOAL!, THE MUG WITH A GOALPOST!,
MAX’IS CREATIONS M (Stylized/Design), MAX’IS CREATIONS, and THE WORLD
WOULD BE BETTER IF WE COULD PLAY WITH OUR FOOD! (collectively the ‘MCINC
Marks’).” Id. at ¶ 24 (capitalization in original); see also ¶ 25 (table); [ECF No. 1-1].
MCINC is also the exclusive licensee of all rights in and to “photographs that are
protected by copyright and registered with the Copyright Office (collectively the
‘Copyrighted Photographs’).” [ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 47; 48]. The Copyrighted Photographs “are
duly registered with the Register of Copyrights as visual materials[.]” Id. at ¶ 49; id.
(table). “Only the Plaintiff has authorization to advertise, market, or promote goods using
the Copyrighted Photographs.” Id. ¶ 52.
Moreover, MCINC is the exclusive licensee of all rights to the “utility configuration
and design features” 3 of certain mugs and bowls which “are protected under different
registered utility and design patents with the United Stated [sic] Patent and Trademark
Office, including among them the ones listed in the table below (collectively the ‘MCINC
Patents’).” Id. at ¶ 53; see also id. (table); id. at ¶ 54. “Only the Plaintiff has authorization
3 MCINC specifies in its motion that “[it] only seeks a default judgment based on
infringement of the MCINC design patents.” [ECF No. 74, p. 7 n.3 (emphasis added)].
3
to import, make, use or sell goods using the MCINC Patents” and it “prominently
displays the patent numbers on the packaging for the mugs and bowls, as well on [sic] its
different online stores.” Id. at ¶¶ 57; 58.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants have willfully infringed on Plaintiff’s
intellectual property rights and engaged in unfair competition through the operation of
their e-commerce stores:
107. Defendants are promoting, advertising, distributing, selling, and/or

offering for sale cheap copies of Plaintiff’s mugs and bowls in interstate
commerce that are counterfeits and infringements of Plaintiff’s licensed
intellectual property rights (the “Counterfeit Goods”) through at least the
Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the Seller IDs.
108. Defendants are using one or more of the MCINC and pirated copies
of the Copyrighted Photographs, or substantially similar photographs, in
their infringing activities, to initially attract online customers and drive
them to Defendants’ e-commerce stores operating under the Seller IDs.
109. Defendants are using identical copies of one or more of the MCINC
Marks for different quality goods.
110. Defendants are pirating the Copyrighted Photographs featuring the

high-quality patented mugs and bowls, in which one or more of MCINC
Marks can be seen, and using them in their online stores to market the
Counterfeit Goods. As a consequence, the MCINC Marks are also being
used in relation to Defendants’ infringing products, resulting in the
infringement of Plaintiff’s Marks, false designation of origin of the
products, and the misleading of consumers about the source and quality of
the products and/or a possible association between Plaintiff and
Defendants.
111. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, some
Defendants are pirating the Copyrighted Photographs and removing the
4
MCINC Marks featured in the images to evade trademark infringement

claims.
***
114. Defendants are actively using, promoting and otherwise advertising,

distributing, selling and/or offering for sale substantial quantities of their
Counterfeit Goods with the knowledge and intent that such goods will be
mistaken for the genuine high-quality patented mugs and bowls offered for
sale by Plaintiff, despite Defendants’ knowledge that they are without
authority to use the MCINC Marks.
115. Defendant’s [sic] counterfeit and confusingly similar imitations of

Plaintiff’s mugs and bowls reproduce the main utility and design features
of the MCINC Patents.
***
117. Defendants advertise their e-commerce stores, including their

Counterfeit Goods offered for sale, to the consuming public via e-commerce
stores on, at least, one Internet marketplace website operating under, at
least, the Seller IDs.
118. In so advertising their stores and products, Defendants improperly

and unlawfully use of [sic] one or more of the MCINC Marks and the
copyrighted Photographs without Plaintiff’s permission.
***
120. Specifically, Defendants are using counterfeits and infringements of

one or more of the MCINC Marks and pirated copies of the Copyrighted
Photographs [sic] order to make their e-commerce stores selling illegal
goods appear more relevant and attractive to consumers searching for both
Plaintiff’s goods and goods sold by Plaintiff’s competitors online.
***
125. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendants
5
in this action had full knowledge of Plaintiff’s exclusive license of the

MCINC Marks, the Copyrighted Photographs and the MCINC Patents,
including its exclusive right to use such intellectual property and the
goodwill associated therewith.
126. Defendants’ use of one or more of the MCINC Marks, including the
promotion and advertisement, reproduction, distribution, sale and offering
for sale of their Counterfeit Goods, is without Plaintiff’s consent or
authorization.
127. Defendants are engaging in the above-described illegal

counterfeiting and infringing activities knowingly and intentionally or with
reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiff’s licensed intellectual
property rights for the purpose of trading on Plaintiff’s goodwill and
reputation.
Id. at ¶¶ 107–11; 114; 115; 117; 118; 120; 125–27.
Plaintiff obtained a Clerk’s Default [ECF No. 66] and now seeks the entry of a
default judgment against the Defaulted Defendants. [ECF No. 74]. In support of the
instant motion, Plaintiff submitted the declaration of its counsel, Joel B. Rothman [ECF
No. 74-3]. Plaintiff’s motion also relies on the earlier-filed declarations of Mr. Rothman
[ECF No. 7-2] and Jennifer Ash, a director of MCINC [ECF No. 7-1]. Additionally, at the
Undersigned’s direction [ECF No. 79], Plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum and
exhibits in support of the instant motion. [ECF Nos. 84; 84-1–7].
II. Applicable Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) states that “[w]hen a party against whom a
judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that
6
failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” A
party may then apply to the District Court for a default final judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b)(2); Alfa Corp. v. Alfa Mortg. Inc., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1173 (M.D. Ala. 2008).
A court may not enter a default final judgment based solely on the existence of a
clerk’s default. Id. at 1174. Instead, a court is required to examine the allegations to see if
they are well-pleaded and present a sufficient basis to support a default judgment on the
causes of action. Id. (citing Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200,
1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). 4 Only those factual allegations that are well-pleaded are admitted
in a default judgment. Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987).
The decision whether to enter a default judgment “is committed to the discretion
of the district court.” Hamm v. DeKalb Cty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1985). Default
judgments are “generally disfavored” because this Circuit has a “strong policy of
determining cases on their merits.” Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1244–
45 (11th Cir. 2015). In addition to assessing whether the complaint adequately sets forth
facts to support the plaintiff’s claims, a court considering the entry of a valid default
judgment must “have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims and have personal
jurisdiction over the defendant.” Osborn v. Whites & Assocs. Inc., No. 1:20-cv-02528, 2021
4 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981), our appellate court held
that all Fifth Circuit decisions issued before September 30, 1981 would become binding
precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.
7
WL 3493164, at *2 (N.D. Ga. May 20, 2021) (citing Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558
F.3d 1210, 1215 & n.13 (11th Cir. 2009)).
A court may conduct a hearing on a motion for default judgment when, in order
“to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to: (A) conduct an accounting; (B) determine
the amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D)
investigate any other matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); see also Tara Prods., Inc. v. Hollywood
Gadgets, Inc., 449 F. App’x 908, 911–12 (11th Cir. 2011) (noting that Rule 55(b)(2) “leaves
the decision to hold an evidentiary hearing to the court’s discretion”).
III. Analysis
“[B]efore entering a default judgment, the Court must ensure that it has
jurisdiction over the claims and there must be a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the
judgment entered.” Tissone v. Osco Food Servs., LLC, No. 19-CV-61358, 2021 WL 1529915,
at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-61358-CIV, 2021
WL 870526 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2021) (citing Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206).
a. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The Complaint alleges federal causes of action under the Lanham Act, the
Copyright Act, and the Patent Act. [ECF No. 1]. Title 28, United States Code, Section 1331
grants federal courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions “arising under” the laws
of the United States. Moreover, the Lanham Act explicitly grants federal courts original
8
jurisdiction over lawsuits alleging violations of its provisions. 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a); see also
Daka Rsch., Inc. v. Individuals, P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A”, No.
22-CV-60246, 2023 WL 5310240, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 14, 2023), report and recommendation
adopted sub nom. Daka Rsch. Inc. v. Individuals, P’ships, & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on
Amended Schedule “A”, No. 22-60246-CV, 2023 WL 5289258 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2023) (“[T]he
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
(providing for federal question jurisdiction) and 1338 (governing actions involving
patents, copyrights, and trademarks, among others).”).
The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s common law claims
because they “are so related to” Plaintiff’s federal law claims “that they form part of the
same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a). Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action.
b. Personal Jurisdiction
In addition to subject matter jurisdiction, a court must also have personal
jurisdiction over each defendant. “A judgment rendered in the absence of personal
jurisdiction is void and without legal effect.” Strange v. Nescio, No. 20-80947-CV, 2021 WL
8945480, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2021) (citing Juris v. Inamed Corp., 685 F.3d 1294, 1335
(11th Cir. 2012)). For this reason, “when deciding a motion for default judgment, a court
9
has an affirmative duty to evaluate whether it has personal jurisdiction over the
defendant and may raise the issue sua sponte.” Id.
“The concept of personal jurisdiction comprises two distinct components:
amenability to jurisdiction and service of process. Amenability to jurisdiction means that
a defendant is within the substantive reach of a forum’s jurisdiction under applicable law.
Service of process is simply the physical means by which that jurisdiction is asserted.”
Baragona v. Kuwait Gulf Link Transp. Co., 594 F.3d 852, 855 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation
omitted).
Service of Process
Service of process is a jurisdictional requirement. “Generally, where service of
process is insufficient, the court has no power to render judgment and the judgment is
void.” In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir. 2003). “[W]ithout
proper service of process, the district court ha[s] no power to enter a default judgment
against the [defendant].” Albert v. Discover Bank, No. 21-12011, 2022 WL 1184405, at *1
(11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2022).
Here, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking authorization for service of process by e-mail
and electronic publication pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which the
Court granted. [ECF Nos. 6;11].
10
The Court authorized Plaintiff to serve Defendants as follows:
(a) MCINC shall serve the Summons, Complaint, and all pleadings, filings,
and discovery upon Defendants in this action via e-mail by providing the
address for MCINC’s designated serving notice website to the Defendants
via the e-mail accounts provided by each Defendant (i) as part of the data
related to its e-commerce store, including customer service e-mail
addresses, onsite contact forms, and private messaging application or
services, or (ii) via the e-commerce platform e-mail or the designated
domain name Registrar’s e-mail or domain contact form for each of the e-
commerce stores; AND
(b) MCINC shall serve the Defendants via website posting by posting a
copy of the Summonses, Complaint, and all filings and discovery in this
matter on MCINC’s designated serving notice website appearing at the
following URL: www.sriplaw.com/notice.
[ECF No. 11, p. 3 (emphasis added)].
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed proofs of service indicating that Defendants had been
served via e-mail service and via website posting See [ECF Nos. 26 (Defendants Nos. 126–
36 and 161–89); 31 (Defendants Nos. 53–123); 32 (Defendants Nos. 124, 125, and 137–60);
33 (Defendants Nos. 1 and 21); 34 (Defendants Nos. 29–52); 38 (Defendants Nos. 2–20 and
22–28]. All 189 Defendants have been served in this manner. Id.
Because Plaintiff complied with Judge Scola’s Order [ECF No. 11] authorizing
alternative service of process over Defendants, Plaintiff has effectuated service of process
on Defendants in the instant case. See Leading Edge Mktg. Inc. v. Individuals, P’ships &
Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-23480-CIV, 2022 WL 16756952, at
*2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 21-23480-CIV, 2022 WL
11
17144227 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2022) (finding defendants have been “properly served . . .
with the [c]omplaint and summonses via email and Internet publication, consistent with
the Court’s Order Authorizing Alternate Service”); Ain Jeem, Inc. v. Individuals, P’ships &
Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 8:21-CV-1261-VMC-JSS, 2022 WL
2306858, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2022), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Ain Jeem,
Inc. v. Individuals, No. 8:21-CV-1261-VMC-JSS, 2022 WL 2306874 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2022)
(finding that “[the] [p]laintiff [had] properly effected service on [the] [d]efendants
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3)” by complying with the court’s order
authorizing alternate service of process).
Amenability to Jurisdiction
Plaintiff’s counsel attest that “Defendants are residing and/or operating from the
People’s Republic of China . . . or other foreign countries and/or redistribute products
from sources in those locations.” [ECF No. 6-1, ¶ 11]. “The plaintiff has the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.”
Meier ex rel. Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264, 1268–69 (11th Cir. 2002). “A
plaintiff seeking the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant bears
the initial burden of alleging in the complaint sufficient facts to make out a prima facie
case of jurisdiction.” United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009); see
also Warner Bros. Ent. Inc. v. Phillips, No. 6:14-CV-1294-ORL-37, 2015 WL 4590519, at *3
12
(M.D. Fla. July 28, 2015) (“Even in the default judgment context, as a threshold matter,
the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of
personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants.”).
In Leading Edge Mktg., Inc. v. Individuals, P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified
on Schedule “A”, this Court determined that it had “personal jurisdiction over the
[d]efendants” because they had been served in accordance with the “Court’s order
authorizing alternative service” and:
[the] [d]efendants directly target their business activities toward consumers

in the United States, including Florida, and . . . [were] reaching out to do
business with Florida residents by operating one or more commercial,
interactive internet stores on internet marketplaces where Florida residents
[could] purchase products bearing infringing and/or counterfeit
trademarks belonging to the [p]laintiff.
No. 23-CV-21333, 2023 WL 3392684, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2023).
Similarly here, the Complaint alleges that:
61. Defendants are engaged in business in Florida but have not

appointed an agent for service of process.
***
63. Defendants target their business activities toward consumers

throughout the United States, including within this district, through the
simultaneous operation of commercial Internet based e-commerce stores
via the Internet marketplace websites under the Seller IDs.
***
66. Defendants have purposefully directed some portion of their illegal

13
activities towards consumers in the state of Florida through the

advertisement, offer to sell, sale, and/or shipment of counterfeit and
infringing goods into the State.
***
75. Defendants, through the sale and offer to sell counterfeit and
infringing products, are directly, and unfairly, competing with Plaintiff’s
economic interests in the state of Florida and causing Plaintiff harm and
damage within this jurisdiction.
[ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 61; 63; 66; 75 (emphasis added)].
Because “a defaulted defendant is deemed to have admitted the movant’s well-
pleaded allegations of fact,” 5 these established facts provide a basis for this Court’s
personal jurisdiction over Defendants. See TWOWS, LLC v. Individuals, P’ships &
Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 823CV00139WFJMRM, 2023 WL
2837693, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2023) (“[The] [p]laintiff has demonstrated a prima facie
showing that this [c]ourt has specific personal jurisdiction over the [d]efendants. [The]
[d]efendants, alleged to be residing or operating in outside the United States, and are
alleged to have committed a tortious act within the state of Florida in satisfaction of Fla.
Stat. § 48.193(1)(b).”). 6
5 Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1339 (11th Cir. 2014).
6 See also, Lead Creation Inc. v. P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule A,
No. 8:23-CV-49-CEH-CPT, 2023 WL 1993971, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2023) (“[The]
[p]laintiff has demonstrated a prima facie showing that this Court has personal jurisdiction
over the [d]efendants, who are alleged to be residing or operating in the People’s
14
In sum, Plaintiff has demonstrated that this Court has both subject-matter and
personal jurisdiction over the Defaulted Defendants.
c. No Possibility of Inconsistent Judgments
Courts have been reluctant to enter default judgments in cases where there are
both defaulted and non-defaulted defendants. See, e.g., Houston Cas. Co. v. Endurance
Assurance Corp., No. 6:22-CV-1429-RBD-LHP, 2023 WL 2633312, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 24,
2023) (denying motion for default judgment without prejudice because there was a non-
defaulted defendant); Progressive Mountain Ins. Co. v. Mobile Maint. on the Go, LLLP, No.
1:20-CV-01665-JPB, 2022 WL 1714859, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2022) (declining to enter a
default judgment while the declaratory action was pending against other, non-defaulted
defendants).
In cases where there are both defaulted and non-defaulted defendants, a court
should defer entering a judgment of liability against the defaulted defendant(s) where
both the defaulted and non-defaulted defendants are jointly liable. This practice is
Republic of China, because the [d]efendants directly target their business activities
toward consumers in the United States, including Florida. Specifically, [the] [p]laintiff
has provided a basis to conclude that [the] [d]efendants have targeted sales to Florida
residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States
consumers using one or more [s]eller [a]liases, offer shipping to the United States,
including Florida, accept payment in U.S. dollars and have sold the same product that
infringes directly and/or indirectly [the] [p]laintiff’s patent-in-suit to residents of
Florida.”).
15
designed to avoid inconsistent judgments. See Frow v. De La Vega, 15 Wall. 552, 82 U.S.
552, 21 L.Ed. 60 (1872).
“Several Circuits, including the Eleventh [Circuit], have found Frow applies to
situations where defendants are jointly and severally liable, or have closely related
defenses.” Rodriguez v. Guacamole's Authentic Mexican Food & More, LLC, No. 11-62527-
CIV, 2012 WL 718688, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2012) (emphasis added). Even where there
is no joint liability, the Eleventh Circuit has stated that it is “sound policy” that “when
defendants are similarly situated, but not jointly liable, judgment should not be entered
against a defaulting defendant if the other defendant prevails on the merits.” Gulf Coast
Fans, Inc. v. Midwest Elecs. Importers, Inc., 740 F.2d 1499, 1512 (11th Cir. 1984) (emphasis
added) (citing C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2690, 6 Moore,
Federal Practice, ¶ 55.06).
Here, Plaintiff moves for a default final judgment against some (but not all
Defendants). It asserts that there is no possibility of inconsistent liability. [ECF No. 74, p.
3 (“Because there are no allegations of joint liability or possibility of inconsistent liability
between the Default[ed] Defendants, Plaintiff now moves for entry of a final default
judgment.”); id. at 9 (“There are multiple defendants but no allegations of joint and
several liability with respect to the damages alleged and there is no possibility of
16
inconsistent liability between [D]efendants.”). The Undersigned has reviewed the docket
and agrees with Plaintiff that inconsistent liability is not at issue here.
Schedule A lists 189 Defendants [ECF No. 9-1]. As discussed above, Plaintiff has
effectuated service of process on all Defendants by e-mail and electronic publication, as
authorized by Judge Scola [ECF No. 11]. Plaintiff has filed proofs of service for all 189
Defendants. [ECF Nos. 26; 31–34; 38]. The docket reflects that no Defendant has filed an
answer or otherwise responded to the Complaint [ECF No. 1] and the time for doing so
has passed.
Based on the record, there are no Defendants actively litigating this action and
there is no possibility of inconsistent liability. See Max’is Creations, Inc. v. The Individuals,
P’ships, & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A”, No. 21-CV-22920, 2022 WL
104216, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2022) (finding “no possibility of inconsistent liability
between the [d]efendants” where “[the] [p]laintiff ha[d] stated in its [m]otion that there
[were] no allegations of joint and several liability with respect to damages” and “[t]he
[d]efendants remaining in the case ha[d] not appeared and ha[d] defaulted” (emphasis
added)); Safety Nailer LLC v. Individuals, P’ships , & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on
Schedule “A”, No. 21-CV-22703, 2021 WL 6197744, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2021) (finding
“a sufficient basis in the pleading for the default judgment to be entered in favor of [the]
[p]laintiff with respect to the defaulting [d]efendants” where “[the] [p]laintiff has stated
17
in its [m]otion that there [were] no allegations of joint and several liability with respect
to damages” and “[the] [d]efendants remaining in the case ha[d] not appeared and
ha[d] defaulted” (emphasis added)).
d. Liability
As noted above, the Complaint alleges the following causes of action against all
Defendants: (1) trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (2) false
designation of origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) common law unfair
competition; (4) common law trademark infringement; (5) copyright infringement in
violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106; and (6) patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. [ECF No.
1].
Plaintiff is not seeking a default judgment against each Defaulted Defendant on all
five counts of the Complaint. Attached to Plaintiff’s motion is a damages table [ECF No.
74-2] which lists the names of each Defaulted Defendant, the number of works/marks
infringed, and the cause(s) of action on which Plaintiff seeks a default judgment as to that
specific Defendant. For instance, for Defendant No. 3 (Shenzhen Shenglong International
Trade Co., Ltd.), Plaintiff seeks to recover for the infringement of two (out of six) patents,
but not for copyright or trademark infringement. Id. at 2.
18
As part of its supplemental filings, Plaintiff filed an amended damages table [ECF
No. 84-1]. Plaintiff states that:
Upon review of Plaintiff’s spreadsheet containing the damages calculations,

Plaintiff discovered that for certain Defendants, the damages for trademark
infringement were mistakenly calculated twice due to two separate
infringements of the same mark. Plaintiff has made the corrections in the
table attached as Exhibit 1, and highlighted the cells that were adjusted for
the Court’s ease.
[ECF No. 84, p. 10]. In this Report and Recommendations, the Undersigned will rely on
the amended damages table [ECF No. 84-1].
Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, and Unfair Competition
Plaintiff alleges claims for trademark infringement (Count I) and false designation
of origin (Count II) under the Lanham Act. “[T]he elements of a claim for trademark
infringement occur[ ] when a person ‘use[s] in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit,
copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark’ which ‘is likely to cause confusion, or
to cause mistake, or to deceive.’” Chanel, Inc. v. Reznik, No. 07-60493-CIV, 2007 WL
9710719, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2007) (quoting Frehling Enters. v. Int’l Select Grp., Inc., 192
F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999)). Thus, to prevail on Count I, Plaintiff must show “(1) that
its mark has priority and (2) that [ ] [D]efendants’ mark is likely to cause consumer
confusion.” Id.
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged and established each of these elements: (1)
Plaintiff’s licensed exclusive rights to the MCINC Marks preceded Defendants’

19
infringement; (2) Defendants are selling, offering for sale, and marketing products with
the MCINC Marks without Plaintiff’s consent or authorization; and (3) the marks used
on the products Defendants are selling, offering for sale, and marketing are similar to the
Plaintiff’s MCINC Marks that they are likely to cause consumer confusion. [ECF No. 1,
¶¶ 18, 21, 24–28, 106, 109-12, 114, 118–20, 125, 126, 141, 142, 149, 150]. Additionally,
Plaintiff relies on the declaration of Jennifer Ash, a director of MCINC, to support the
allegations of Defendants’ infringing activities. See Ash Declaration [ECF No. 7-1, ¶¶ 8,
10, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25-27, 28, 30, 31-35, 37-40, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63-65, 67, 68, 70-73, 75, and 89-
91]. In its supplemental filings, Plaintiff included screenshots of the Defaulted
Defendants’ products on their e-commerce stores. [ECF Nos. 84-2; 84-3]. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment on its trademark infringement claim (Count I).
“The elements of a claim for false designation of origin are: ‘(1) that the plaintiff
had enforceable trademark rights in the mark or name[ ] and (2) that the defendant made
unauthorized use of it such that consumers were likely to confuse the two.’” Volkswagen
Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Varona, No. 19-24838-CIV, 2021 WL 247872, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25,
2021) (quoting Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Simply Wireless, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 1299
(S.D. Fla. 2017)).
The test for liability for false designation of origin is the same as for trademark
infringement and counterfeiting, whether the public is likely to be deceived or confused
20
by the similarity of the subject marks. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 780
(1992). As already noted, Plaintiff’s well-pled allegations establish its exclusive licensing
rights over the MCINC Marks and there is a likelihood of consumer confusion due to
Defendants’ use of the MCINC Marks. [ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 106, 109-12, 114, 118–20, 125, 126,
141, 142, 149, 150]. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment on its false designation
of origin claim (Count II).
Plaintiff has also alleged common law causes of action for unfair competition
(Count III) and trademark infringement (Count IV). “[T]he Florida common law
trademark infringement and unfair competition analysis is essentially the same as the
federal trademark infringement analysis.” Colonial Van Lines, Inc. v. Colonial Moving &
Storage, LLC, No. 20-CIV-61255-RAR, 2020 WL 6700449, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2020)
(citing Marine v. Black Fin Yacht Corp., No. 8:15-CV-1210-T-27AEP, 2016 WL 5106948, at *5
(M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2016)). Because Plaintiff has shown it is entitled to a default judgment
in its favor on its federal trademark infringement claim, it is also entitled to a default
judgment in its favor on its common law trademark infringement and unfair competition
claims.
In sum, Plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment in its favor on its federal
trademark infringement and false designation of origin claims and its common law
claims of unfair competition and trademark infringement as to those Defaulted
21
Defendants listed in the amended damages table [ECF No. 84-1] as having violated the
MCINC Marks.
Copyright Infringement
Plaintiff also seeks to recover for copyright infringement. Plaintiff states that “[it]
is the owner of U.S. copyright registrations for the photographs it uses to market its
products.” [ECF No. 74, p. 12 (emphasis added)]. But its Complaint alleges that it is the
exclusive licensee of these photographs. [ECF No. 1, ¶ 48 (“Plaintiff is the exclusive
licensee of all rights in and to the Copyrighted Photographs, including the exclusive right
to pursue acts of infringement worldwide and retain and recover all proceeds thereof.”)].
In any event, Plaintiff has standing to bring its claim for copyright infringement. See Dish
Network L.L.C. v. Fraifer, No. 8:16-CV-2549-T-60CPT, 2020 WL 1515938, at *9 (M.D. Fla.
Jan. 31, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 8:16-CV-2549-60CPT, 2020 WL
1512090 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2020) (“Under the Act, copyright owners and exclusive
licensees may enforce a copyright.” (citing 17 U.S.C. § 501(b)).
Plaintiff notes that the copyrights are presumptively valid because the registration
certificates were issued before or within five years of the first publication. [ECF No. 74,
p. 12 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 410(c); Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340,
111 S. Ct. 1282, 113 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1991))]. It further states that it has “produced documents
22
showing [the Defaulted] Defendants . . . copied the entirety of Plaintiff’s Works. (Ash
Decl. ¶ 66, DE 7-1; see also Exhibit 3).” [ECF No. 74, pp. 12–13].
“To establish [a] claim for copyright infringement, [the] [p]laintiff must show (1)
that he own[s] a valid copyright in the photograph, and (2) that [the] [d]efendant copied
original elements of those photographs.” Markos v. Yacht Charters of Miami.com, LLC, No.
19-22284-CV, 2019 WL 8989936, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2019), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 19-22284-CIV, 2019 WL 8989935 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2019) (citing Leigh v. Warner
Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 2000)). In Markos, this Court determined that:
“[The] [p]laintiff successfully pled these factors, alleging that he registered

the photograph at issue with the Register of Copyrights on November 3,
2016, and that [the] [d]efendant subsequently used this photograph on [its]
website without license or permission to do so. Thus, he [was] entitled to
default judgment on his copyright infringement claim.”
Id. (footnote omitted).
Similarly here, the well-pled allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint establish the
validity of the Copyrighted Photographs and Plaintiff’s exclusive licensing rights. See
[ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 48–49; 52; 174–75]. The Complaint alleges that “Defendants directly
infringed Plaintiff’s licensed exclusive rights in its copyright registered advertising and
marketing photographs under 17 U.S.C. § 106.” and “copied, displayed, and distributed
Plaintiff’s licensed Copyrighted Photographs and/or prepared derivative works based
23
upon Plaintiff’s licensed Copyrighted Photographs in violation of Plaintiff’s licensed
exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (2) and/or (5).” Id. at 176–77.
Plaintiff also relies on paragraphs 9, 42, 43, 46, and 66 of the Ash Declaration to
support this cause of action. Finally, Plaintiff’s supplemental filings [ECF Nos. 84-2; 84-
3] include screenshots of the subject photographs appearing on the e-commerce stores of
those Defaulted Defendants listed in Plaintiff’s amended damages table [ECF No. 84-1]
as having infringed on the subject photographs.
Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded all elements of a copyright infringement claim
and is therefore entitled to default judgment as to those Defaulted Defendants listed as
having infringed on the subject photographs.
Patent Infringement
Under the Patent Act, “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or
sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States
any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.” 35
U.S.C. § 271(a). In the instant case, “Plaintiff only seeks a default judgment based on [the]
infringement of the MCINC design patents.” [ECF No. 74, p. 7 n.3 (emphasis added)].
This Court has explained that:
A design patent is infringed when, “during the term of a patent for a design,
without license of the owner” a defendant “(1) applies the patented design,
or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the
purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to
24
which such design or colorable imitation has been applied.” 35 U.S.C. § 289.
“Determining whether a design patent is infringed is a two-step process.
First, when appropriate, the design patent’s claims are construed. Second,
the patented design is compared to the accused device.” Pride Family Brands,
Inc. v. Carl’s Patio, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1223–24 (S.D. Fla. 2014) “The
‘ordinary observer’ test is the sole test for determining whether a design
patent has been infringed.” Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus
Innovative Accessories, Inc., 942 F.3d 1119, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Under
this test, “if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a
purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the
resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to
purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed
by the other.” Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528, 14 Wall. 511, 20
L.Ed. 731 (1871). “Minor differences between a patented design and an
accused article’s design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of
infringement.” Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Com’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1303 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (quoting Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Reebok Intern. Ltd., 998 F.2d 985, 991
(Fed. Cir. 1993)) (cleaned up).
XYZ Corp. v. Individuals, P’ships, & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A”, No.
22-CV-24022, 2023 WL 2815123, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2023) (emphasis added); see also
Shenzhen Changyu Tech. Co. v. Individuals, P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on
Schedule A, No. 21-22138-CIV, 2021 WL 4991242, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2021) (“[The]
[p]laintiff must demonstrate that the accused product infringes a patented design. First,
the Court must perform claim construction on the design patent claims. See Catalina
Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d 1277, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Second, the Court
must apply the “ordinary observer” test for design patent infringement. Egyptian Goddess,
Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008).”).
25
In cases involving design patents:
If the resemblance between the two designs is sufficient to deceive the

ordinary observer, inducing him/her to purchase one thinking it was the
other, then the first one patented is infringed by the other. Pride Fam. Brands,
Inc. v. Carl’s Patio, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1224 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (citation
omitted). A proper comparison may include a side-by-side view of the
design patent drawings and the accused products, and minor differences
between a patented design and the design of an accused product does not
preclude a finding of infringement. Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens
Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Daka Rsch., Inc., 2023 WL 5310240, at *3 (emphasis added).
In Shenzhen Changyu Tech. Co., this Court found that the plaintiff had met its
burden of establishing design patent infringement liability, in the context of a default
final judgment motion, where:
[t]he well-pleaded factual allegations of . . . [the] [c]omplaint properly

contain[ed] the elements for the [patent infringement] claim and [were]
admitted by virtue of [the] [d]efendants’ defaults. Moreover, the
[c]omplaint’s factual allegations ha[d] been substantiated by sworn
declarations and other evidence and establish[ed] [the] [d]efendants’
liability for the claim asserted.
2021 WL 4991242, at *3 (record citations omitted).
Here, the well-pleaded allegations of the Complaint, deemed admitted by
Defendants’ defaults, establish the infringement of Plaintiff’s design patents. The
Complaint alleges that:
54. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of all rights in and to the MCINC
Patents, including the exclusive right to pursue acts of infringement
worldwide and retain and recover all proceeds thereof.
26
***
56. The MCINC Design Patents relates to the ornamental designs for a
mugs [sic] or bowls with extension from the handle or rim portions that are
indicative of various sport games, such as basketball hoops, baseball gloves,
hockey nets, football goal posts and soccer nets.
57. Only [ ] Plaintiff has authorization to import, make, use or sell goods
using the MCINC Patents.
***
189. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of all rights in and to the MCINC
Patents.
[ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 54, 56, 57, 189].
The Complaint further alleges that:
190. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the MCINC

Patents either directly or indirectly through acts of contributory
infringement or inducement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making,
using, selling, importing and/or offering to sell infringing products, namely
the infringing and counterfeit products sold under one or more of the
MCINC Marks.
191. Defendants infringing and counterfeit products sold under one or

more of the MCINC Marks are the same in all material respects.
***
193. Defendants’ infringement, contributory infringement and/or

inducement to infringe has been willful and deliberate because Defendants
have notice of or knew of the MCINC Patents and have nonetheless injured
and will continue to injure Plaintiff, unless and until this Court enters an
injunction, which prohibits further infringement and specifically enjoins
further manufacture, use, sale, importation and/or offer for sale of products
27
that come within the scope of the MCINC Patents.
Id. at ¶¶ 190, 191, 193.
Plaintiff cites to the Ash Declaration to support this cause of action. See Ash
Declaration [ECF No. 7-1, ¶¶ 9, 47–52, 60, 65–68]. Moreover, as part of its supplemental
filings, Plaintiff filed Composite Exhibit 3, which consists of “side-by-side comparisons
of the applicable patents and each Default[ed] Defendant’s accused products, which
demonstrate that Defendants’ products infringe the MCINC Patents.” [ECF Nos. 84, p.
10; 84-4 (table)]. 7 Therefore, Plaintiff has established liability for patent infringement as
to the Defaulted Defendants. 8
In sum, the well-pled allegations in the Amended Complaint, deemed admitted
by virtue of the default and bolstered by the sworn declaration of Jennifer Ash and other
record evidence, including side-by-side comparisons of MCINC Patents and the
infringing products, establish the Defaulted Defendants’ liability under the Patent Act.
7 Some Defaulted Defendants (Nos. 41, 64, 79–85, 87–103, 105–110, 187) are missing
from Composite Exhibit 3. Nonetheless, Exhibit 2 contains screenshots of all the
Defaulted Defendants’ e-commerce stores and the Court is able to make visual
comparisons between the products on the missing Defendants’ e-commerce stores and
the corresponding design patent(s). Therefore, it is not necessary for Plaintiff to submit
comparison charts for those Defaulted Defendants missing from Composite Exhibit 3.
8 Plaintiff’s amended damages table [ECF No. 84-1] reflects that each Defaulted
Defendant has infringed on at least one of the MCINC design patents.
28
e. Damages
“Once a plaintiff has established a sufficient basis for liability, the Court must
conduct an inquiry to determine the appropriate damages.” Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v.
Compass Med. Centers Inc., No. 21-CV-23623, 2022 WL 17653816, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 10,
2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 21-23623-CIV, 2022 WL 17602650 (S.D. Fla.
Dec. 13, 2022). Even in the default judgment context, the Court “has an obligation to
assure that there is a legitimate basis for any damage award it enters.” Anheuser Busch,
Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2003). “Although a defaulted defendant
admits well-pleaded allegations of liability, allegations relating to the amount of damages
are not admitted by virtue of default. Rather, the Court determines the amount and
character of damages to be awarded.” Miller v. Paradise of Port Richey, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d
1342, 1346 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (citing 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay
Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2688 at 58–59 (3d ed. 1998)).
Here, Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, monetary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
[ECF No. 74]. As discussed below, Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested.
Injunctive Relief
Plaintiff seeks the issuance of a permanent injunction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116,
17 U.S.C. § 502, and 35 U.S.C. § 283. [ECF No. 74, pp. 14–15]. It notes that the Court has
29
already entered a preliminary injunction in this case [ECF No. 44] and “[n]o change has
occurred since then[.]” [ECF No. 74, p. 15].
The Lanham Act authorizes the Court to issue an injunction “according to the
principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to prevent
the violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and
Trademark Office[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). Generally, “[i]njunctive relief is the remedy of
choice for trademark and unfair competition cases, since there is no adequate remedy at
law for the injury caused by a defendant’s continuing infringement.” Burger King Corp. v.
Agad, 911 F. Supp. 1499, 1509–10 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (citation omitted); see also Betty’s Best, Inc.
v. Individuals, P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule ‘A’, No. 1:23-CV-22322-
KMW, 2023 WL 6171566, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2023) (noting that “both the Copyright
Act and the Patent Act permit the entry of an injunction to restrain violations of those
acts” (citing 17 U.S.C. § 502, 35 U.S.C. § 283)). Moreover, injunctive relief is available even
in the default judgment setting[ ] because [the] [d]efendants’ failure to respond or
otherwise appear makes it difficult for a plaintiff to prevent further infringement absent
an injunction.” Animacord Ltd. v. Individuals, P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on
Schedule “A”, No. 21-CV-20744, 2022 WL 1109849, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2022), report and
recommendation adopted sub nom. Animaccord Ltd. v. Individuals, P’ships, or Unincorporated
30
Ass’ns Identified on Schedule A, No. 21-20744-CIV, 2022 WL 1102865 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2022)
(internal citation omitted).
To obtain a permanent injunction, Plaintiff must show: (1) irreparable injury; (2)
an inadequate remedy at law; (3) that the balance of hardships weigh in favor of issuing
an injunction; and (4) that the issuance of an injunction would not disserve the public
interest. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 1839, 164 L.
Ed. 2d 641 (2006).
All four factors are met here. Plaintiff has shown that the Defaulted Defendants
are promoting and otherwise advertising, distributing, selling and/or offering for sale,
through their e-commerce stores, goods bearing counterfeit and infringing trademarks
bearing one or more of the MCINC Marks, without authorization. Therefore, consumers
will continue to be confused by the Defaulted Defendants’ unauthorized use of the
MCINC Marks. Additionally, so long as the Defaulted Defendants continue their
infringing and counterfeiting activities, Plaintiff loses its ability to control the MCINC
Marks and will continue to suffer irreparable harm to its reputation and goodwill. See
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1995) (“There is
no doubt that the continued sale of thousands of pairs of counterfeit jeans would damage
LS & CO’s business reputation and decrease its legitimate sales.”); Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.
v. Barrow, 143 F. App’x 180, 190 (11th Cir. 2005) (noting that “[g]rounds for irreparable
31
injury include loss of control of reputation, loss of trade, and loss of goodwill. Irreparable
injury can also be based upon the possibility of confusion.” (citation omitted)).
Plaintiff has also shown no adequate remedy at law because monetary damages
alone will not redress the harm to Plaintiff from the Defaulted Defendants’ infringement.
See Chanel, Inc. v. besumart.com, 240 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (“[The]
[p]laintiff has no adequate remedy at law so long as [the] [d]efendants continue to operate
the [s]ubject [d]omain [n]ames and [s]eller IDs because [the] [p]laintiff cannot control the
quality of what appears to be its products in the marketplace. An award of money
damages alone will not cure the injury to [the] [p]laintiff’s reputation and goodwill that
will result if [the] [d]efendants’ infringing and counterfeiting actions are allowed to
continue.” (record citation omitted)).
The balance of harms also weighs in favor of issuing a permanent injunction.
Plaintiff’s injury without an injunction outweighs the impact an injunction would have
on the Defaulted Defendants. See Chanel, Inc. v. Replicachanelbag, 362 F. Supp. 3d 1256,
1264 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (finding that the balance of harms favored the issuance of a
permanent injunction where “[the] [p]laintiff face[d] hardship from loss of sales and its
inability to control its reputation in the marketplace,” whereas “[the] [d]efendants face[d]
no hardship if they [were] prohibited from the infringement of [the] [p]laintiff’s
trademarks, which is an illegal act.”).
32
Lastly, the public interest will not be disserved if the Court were to enjoin the
Defaulted Defendants. “[T]he public interest is served by preventing consumer confusion
in the marketplace.” Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD Int’l Corp., 263 F.3d 1297, 1304 (11th Cir.
2001) (citing SunAmerica Corp. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 77 F.3d 1325, 1334 (11th
Cir. 1996)); 9 Mantua Mfg. Co. v. Irize Mattress, Inc., No. 20-25036-CIV, 2021 WL 3375837,
at *5 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2021) (“The public interest is served by the entry of a permanent
injunction in that further confusion and mistake by the public will be prevented.”).
In sum, Plaintiff has shown entitlement to permanent injunctive relief. Therefore,
the Undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court enter a permanent injunction
consistent with the terms listed in Plaintiff’s proposed final default judgment and
permanent injunction [ECF No. 74-6, pp. 1–4].
Monetary Damages
As noted above, Plaintiff’s amended damages table [ECF No. 84-1] identifies the
cause(s) of action and the number and nature of infringements on which Plaintiff seeks
to hold each Defaulted Defendant liable. The table reflects that Plaintiff seeks to recover
9 Although Davidoff & CIE, S.A. concerned the entry of a preliminary injunction and
the instant motion seeks the issuance of a permanent injunction, “[t]he standard for a
preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the
exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than
actual success.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 (1987).
33
$750.00 per design patent, $150,000.00 per copyrighted photograph, and $100,000.00 per
trademark. Id. The Undersigned will address the requested damages below.
Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, and Unfair Competition
The Lanham Act provides multiple remedies for violations of trademark law. In
addition to injunctive relief, discussed above, the Lanham Act permits a successful
plaintiff “to recover (1) defendant’s profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff,
and (3) the costs of the action.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The Lanham Act also allows for the
court-ordered turnover of counterfeit items in a defendant’s possession. 15 U.S.C. § 1118.
In certain instances, the Lanham Act provides for the recovery of statutory
damages:
In a case involving the use of a counterfeit mark (as defined in section

1116(d) of this title) in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or
distribution of goods or services, the plaintiff may elect, at any time before
final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual
damages and profits under subsection (a), an award of statutory damages
for any such use in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution
of goods or services in the amount of—
(1) not less than $1,000 or more than $200,000 per counterfeit
mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or
distributed, as the court considers just; or
(2) if the court finds that the use of the counterfeit mark was
willful, not more than $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per
type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed,
as the court considers just.
15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) (emphasis added).

34
Here, “Plaintiff elects to recover an award of statutory damages as to the
trademark counterfeiting and infringement claims.” [ECF No. 74, p. 16]. It notes that
“[t]he lack of information regarding Defendants’ sales and profits makes statutory
damages especially appropriate in default judgment cases like the instant case,” id. (citing
Express, Inc. v. MedPets.Com, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1220 (S.D. Fla. 2004)), and that the
“default [itself] establishes that [the] [Defaulted] Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s
Mark was willful and deliberate.” Id.
Plaintiff seeks a statutory award of $100,000 per mark infringed against the
Defaulted Defendants. [ECF No. 74, p. 17]. The amended damages table [ECF No. 84-1]
contains a breakdown of the damages sought against those Defaulted Defendants who
have infringed on the MCINC Marks, including the number of trademarks infringed by
that Defendant.
“The Court has wide discretion to determine the amount of statutory damages.”
Animacord Ltd., 2022 WL 1109849, at *5 (citing PetMed Express, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d at
1219). The Court may award statutory damages even in instances where a plaintiff cannot
prove actual damages caused by a defendant’s infringement. See ABS-CBN Corp. v.
abscbn-teleserye.com, No. 17-61051-CIV, 2017 WL 6947726, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2017)
(noting that “[a]n award of statutory damages is appropriate, because statutory damages
35
may be elected whether or not there is adequate evidence of the actual damages suffered
by [the] plaintiff or of the profits reaped by the [d]efendant”).
The amount of statutory damages awarded should be sufficient to compensate the
trademark owner and deter the defendant and others from infringing on that trademark.
See Green Apple Juice Bar, LLC v. Bay Parc Plaza Mkt., LLC, No. 22-23295-CIV, 2023 WL
3980245, at *7 (S.D. Fla. May 19, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 22-23295-
CV, 2023 WL 3971175 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2023) (“Statutory damages should serve the dual
purposes of compensating the plaintiff and sanctioning and deterring infringers.” (citing
PetMed Express, 336 F. Supp. 2d at 1220–21)).
The infringement in the instant case was willful:
A defendant is deemed to have acted willfully where “the infringer acted

with actual knowledge or reckless disregard” of a plaintiff’s intellectual
property rights. Arista Records, 298 F. Supp. 2d at 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2003).
Willful infringement may be inferred where, as here, a defendant is willing
to accept a default judgment. See Perry Ellis Int’l, Inc. v. URI Corp., No. 06-
22020-CIV, 2007 WL 3047143, at *7 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 18, 2007).
Sanrio Co. v. Sommer’s Ent. LLC, No. 18-CV-22177, 2019 WL 2010249, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Mar.
21, 2019).
The Undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court award Plaintiff the
requested $100,000.00 per infringed mark as to those Defaulted Defendants listed on
Plaintiff’s amended damages table [ECF No. 84-1] as having infringed on one or more of
the MCINC Marks. This recommended statutory award will be sufficient to compensate
36
Plaintiff, punish the infringing Defendants, and deter them and others from continuing
to counterfeit or otherwise infringe Plaintiff’s trademark, consistent with the purpose of
15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). See Max'is Creations, Inc., 2022 WL 104216, at *8 (in case brought by
the instant Plaintiff, “award[ing] statutory damages of $100,000.00 against each
[d]efendants indicated as trademark infringers . . . for each MCINC Mark infringed”);
Sanrio Co., 2019 WL 2010249, at *5 (awarding statutory damages of $100,000.00 against
each defendant for the willful and unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s mark); Chanel, Inc.
v. Sea Hero, 234 F. Supp. 3d 1255, 1263 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (awarding $100,000.00 in statutory
damages per defendant in willful infringement case).
Copyright Infringement
Under the Copyright Act:
a successful copyright litigant is entitled to any damage suffered and the

infringers’ profits or, at the election of the copyright owner, statutory
damages. Statutory damages are awarded per copyrighted work infringed
between Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00) and Thirty Thousand
Dollars ($30,000.00), at the discretion of the Court. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1).
Further, if the Court finds that the infringement was willful, it is within the
Court’s discretion to raise the statutory award to One Hundred and Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) per infringed work.
Sanrio Co2019 WL 2010249, at *4 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2)).
Here, “Plaintiff requests the highest award per work for willful infringement,
$150,000.” [ECF No. 74, p. 18]. Plaintiff contends that “[t]he award is sufficient to
compensate Plaintiff, punish the Counterfeit Defendants, and deter Counterfeit

37
Defendants and others from continuing to infringe Plaintiffs’ [sic] copyrights” and cites
other cases awarding similar damages. Id. at 18–19. Plaintiff’s amended damages table
[ECF No. 84-1] lists those Defaulted Defendants who infringed on the copyrighted
photographs, the number of copyrighted photographs infringed, and the total damages
Plaintiff seeks to recover.
The Undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court award Plaintiff the
requested $150,000.00 per infringed work as to those Defaulted Defendants listed on
Plaintiff’s amended damages table [ECF No. 84-1] as having infringed on one or more of
the copyrighted photographs. See Max'is Creations, Inc., 2022 WL 104216, at *8 (awarding
the requested $150,000.00 per work for willful copyright infringement and noting that
“[t]his award [was] within the statutory range for a willful violation, and [was] sufficient
to compensate [the] plaintiff, punish the [c]opyright [d]efendants, and deter [the]
[c]opyright [d]efendants and others from continuing to infringe [the] [p]laintiffs’
copyrights”).
Patent Infringement
The Patent Act provides that:
a plaintiff in a case involving the unauthorized application or colorable

imitation of a patented design on any article for purpose of sale may elect
to receive the infringer’s “total profit, but not less than $250.” 35 U.S.C. §
289. A court may also increase the damages up to three times the amount
found or assessed. 35 U.S.C. § 284. Courts have found that willful
infringement is grounds for the award of treble damages.
38
Max'is Creations, Inc., 2022 WL 104216, at *9.
“Plaintiff elects to recover a statutory damages award of $250 for each design
patent infringement claim, and requests the Court treble the damages to $750 for each
infringement.” [ECF No. 74, p. 20]. In Max'is Creations, Inc., this Court awarded the same
Plaintiff $750.00 per infringement, noting that “[t]his award [was] within the statutory
range for a willful violation, and [was] sufficient to compensate Plaintiff, punish the
[d]efendants, and deter [d]efendants and others from continuing to infringe Plaintiff[’s]
design patents.” 2022 WL 104216, at *9. Similarly here, the Undersigned respectfully
recommends that the Court award Plaintiff the requested $750.00 per infringed design
patent, as listed in Plaintiff’s amended damages table [ECF No. 84-1].
Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Lastly, Plaintiff states that an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees should
be entered pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, 17 U.S.C. § 505, and 35 U.S.C. § 285. [ECF No. 74,
p. 5].
Under the Lanham Act:
when there is “a violation under section 1125(a) . . . the plaintiff shall be

entitled, subject to the provisions of sections 1111 and 1114 of this title, and
subject to the principles of equity, to recover (1) defendant’s profits, (2) any
damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action.” 15 U.S.C.
§ 1117(a). Moreover, when a violation under section 1125(a) is established,
a court may also award attorney’s fees “in exceptional cases.” Id.
Meanwhile, section 1117(b), which applies when the case involves willful
39
use of counterfeit marks, requires the court to award reasonable attorneys’

fees if the violation consists of “intentionally using a mark or designation,
knowing such mark or designation is a counterfeit mark . . . in connection
with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or services.” 15
U.S.C. § 1117(b)(1).
The Eleventh Circuit has defined an “exceptional case” under section

1117(a) of the Lanham Act to be “a case that stands out from others, either
based on the strength of the litigating positions or the manner in which the
case was litigated.” Tobinick v. Novella, 884 F.3d 1110, 1118 (11th Cir. 2018)
(internal quotations omitted). Tobinick also confirmed that the “exceptional
case” fee analysis under the Lanham Act is the same as that under an
identically worded fees provision in the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C § 285. Id.
Moreover, attorneys’ fees are still available under section 1117(a) in
exceptional cases, even for those plaintiffs who opt to receive statutory
damages under section 1117(c) . . . . See 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); Int’l Watchman,
Inc. v. Individuals, Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on
Schedule “A”, No. 22-24034, 2023 WL 4364027, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2023);
Frugality Inc. v. Individuals, Partnerships, & Unincorporated Associations
Identified on Schedule “A”, No. 21-23025, 2022 WL 686243, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Mar.
8, 2022) (citing Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 104–
11 (2d Cir. 2012)). Finally, “a case may be deemed ‘exceptional’ and merit
an award of attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act when the defendant
disregards legal proceedings and does not appear.” TracFone Wireless, Inc.
v. Cabrera, 883 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1227 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (collecting cases).
Simple Minds Ltd. v. Individuals, P’ships, & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A”,
No. 23-CV-22219-RAR, 2023 WL 6121901, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2023).
Attorney’s fees are also available under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 505.
“Section 505 of the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505, permits the trial court in its
discretion to award a reasonable attorneys’ fee to the prevailing party in a copyright
40
infringement action.” Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821, 832
(11th Cir. 1982). The Eleventh Circuit has stated that:
The touchstone of attorney’s fees under § 505 is whether imposition of

attorney’s fees will further the interests of the Copyright Act, i.e., by
encouraging the raising of objectively reasonable claims and defenses,
which may serve not only to deter infringement but also to ensure “that the
boundaries of copyright law [are] demarcated as clearly as possible” in
order to maximize the public exposure to valuable works.
MiTek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., 198 F.3d 840, 842–43 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Fogerty
v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 526–27, 114 S. Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994)).
As noted above, the Defaulted Defendants acted willfully in their infringement of
the MCINC Marks, the copyrighted photographs, and/or the design patents. They failed
to respond to the Complaint or otherwise participate in this action.
This Court has observed that “[c]ourts routinely award attorney’s fees and costs
upon a finding of willful infringement under the Lanham Act and the Patent Act.” Max'is
Creations, Inc., 2022 WL 104216, at *9 (citing Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Varona, No. 19-
24838-CIV, 2021 WL 1997573, at *12 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2021)). In Max'is Creations, Inc., a
case which ended in a default judgment, this Court awarded the instant Plaintiff the full
amount of attorney’s fees requested ($36,128.75), finding “[t]he amount and rates . . .
reasonable for the work performed as compared to other similar litigation.” Id. Plaintiff
was represented by the same law firm and attorneys representing Plaintiff here.
41
In the instant case, Plaintiff seeks an award of $21,462.50 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiff
filed a declaration from one of its attorneys, Joel B. Rothman, in support of its fee request.
[ECF No. 74-3]. In addition to Mr. Rothman’s declaration, Plaintiff has submitted detailed
billing records, listing the tasks performed by each timekeeper. [ECF No. 74-4].
The billing records reflect $42,925.00 in attorney’s fees. However, “Plaintiff
believes that half the attorney and paralegal time incurred in this case was related to
activities concerning all [ ] Defendants including the Default[ed] Defendants, with the
other half related to negotiating resolutions with [D]efendants who contacted Plaintiff
through counsel or directly.” [ECF No. 74, p. 21]. For this reason, Plaintiff seeks a fee
award of half this amount, or $21,462.50.
The Undersigned has reviewed the record and finds the amount requested to be
reasonable in light of other similar litigation. See, e.g., Int'l Watchman, Inc., 2023 WL
4364027, at *7 (awarding $42,585.00 in attorney’s fees in trademark infringement action
brought by the same law firm and attorneys representing Plaintiff in the instant case);
Max'is Creations, Inc., 2022 WL 104216, at *9 (awarding $36,128.75 in attorney’s fees in case
involving the same causes of action, the same Plaintiff, and the same attorneys); Sharp
Shirter Inc. v. Individuals, P’ships, & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A”, No.
22-CV-61875-RAR, 2023 WL 2868127, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2023) (awarding $18,835.00
42
in attorney’s fees against defaulted defendants in willful infringement case brought by
same attorneys representing Plaintiff).
Plaintiff also seeks to recover costs, consisting of a $402.00 filing fee. The docket
reflects that Plaintiff paid this cost. See Docket Text for ECF No. 1 (“Filing fees $ 402.00
receipt number AFLSDC-16275857”)]. Therefore, Plaintiff should recover this amount.
See Leading Edge Mktg., Inc. v. Individuals, P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on
Schedule “A”, No. 23-CV-21333, 2023 WL 5206034, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2023) (awarding
$402.00 in court costs as part of a default judgment award in willful infringement case);
Int'l Watchman, Inc., 2023 WL 4364027, at *7 (same).
Plaintiff further asks that the Court hold the Defaulted Defendants jointly and
severally liable for the awarded attorney’s fees and costs. [ECF No. 74, p. 22]. In Max’is
Creations, Inc., this Court found that Plaintiff’s fees and cost award could be assessed
“against defendants jointly and severally” where the complaint alleged that:
[the] [d]efendants [were] causing and contributing “to the creation and
maintenance of an illegal marketplace operating in parallel to the legitimate
marketplace for plaintiff’s genuine goods,” and that they are causing
concurrent and indivisible harm to plaintiff and the consuming public by
“(i) depriving plaintiff and other third parties of their right to fairly compete
for space within search engine results and reducing the visibility of
plaintiff’s genuine goods on the World Wide Web, (ii) causing an overall
degradation of the value of the goodwill associated with the MCINC Marks,
and (iii) increasing plaintiff’s overall cost to market its goods and educate
consumers via the Internet.”
43
2022 WL 104216, at *9; see also Sharp Shirter Inc. v. Individuals, P’ships , & Unincorporated
Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A”, No. 1:22-CV-23468-KMW, 2023 WL 6064810, at *5 (S.D.
Fla. Aug. 30, 2023), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Sharp Shirter Inc. v.
Individuals, P’ships, & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule A, No. 22-23468-CV, 2023
WL 6064519 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2023) (finding similar allegations sufficient to support joint
and several liability); Int’l Watchman, Inc., 2023 WL 4364027, at *7 (same).
Similarly here, the Complaint alleges that:
121. By their actions, Defendants are contributing to the creation and

maintenance of an illegal marketplace operating in parallel to the legitimate
marketplace for Plaintiff’s genuine goods.
122. Defendants are causing individual, concurrent and indivisible harm

to Plaintiff and the consuming public by (i) depriving Plaintiff and other
third parties of their right to fairly compete for space within search engine
results and reducing the visibility of Plaintiff’s genuine goods on the World
Wide Web, (ii) causing an overall degradation of the value of the goodwill
associated with the MCINC Marks, and (iii) increasing Plaintiff’s overall
cost to market its goods and educate consumers via the Internet.
123. Defendants are concurrently conducting and targeting their

counterfeiting and infringing activities toward consumers and likely
causing unified harm within this district and elsewhere throughout the
United States.
[ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 121-23].
For the reasons discussed above, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that
the Court find Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, entitled to an award of $21,462.50 in
44
reasonable attorney’s fees and $402.00 in costs. The Defaulted Defendants should be held
jointly and severally liable for these amounts.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court should grant in part and deny in part
Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s motion should be granted as to all Defaulted Defendants
except Nos. 70 and 156, who were subsequently dismissed and are excluded from
Plaintiff’s amended damages table [ECF No. 84-1]. The Court should issue a permanent
injunction against the Defaulted Defendants, award the requested sums in statutory
damages listed in Plaintiff’s amended damages table [ECF No. 84-1] (ranging from
$750.00 to $953,000.00, and totaling $21,579,250.00), and award $21,462.50 in reasonable
attorney’s fees and $402.00 in costs (liability for the fees and costs to be borne jointly and
severally).
Plaintiff will provide a copy of this Report and Recommendations to those
Defendants who are the subject of its motion in the same manner in which the Court
authorized alternative service of process on Defendants. [ECF No. 11]. Plaintiff will file a
notice of compliance on CM/ECF by no later than Wednesday, November 22, 2023.
V. Objections
The parties will have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy
of this Report and Recommendations within which to file written objections, if any, with
45
the District Judge. Each party may file a response to the other party’s objection within
fourteen (14) days of the objection. Failure to file objections timely shall bar the parties
from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and
shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions
contained in this Report except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of
justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson,
885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016).
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on
November 13, 2023.
Copies furnished to:

The Honorable Robert N. Scola, Jr.
All Counsel of Record
46

Max'is Creations v. Schedule A (1:23-cv-20341) - RNR On Motion For Default Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Max'is Creations v. Schedule A (1:23-cv-20341) - RNR On Motion For Default Judgment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Max'is Creations v. Schedule A (1:23-cv-20341) - RNR On Motion For Default Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-20341-RNS Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2023 Page 1 of 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO. 23-CV-20341-SCOLA/GOODMAN

MAX’IS CREATIONS INC.,

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS,

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

In this intellectual property action, Max’is Creations Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “MCINC”)

response deadline has now expired.

Undersigned “for a report and recommendations, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),

Motion be granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff filed a five-count Complaint against all Defendants alleging trademark

(Count VI). [ECF No. 1].

2 This Report and Recommendations cites to the page numbers automatically

MAX’IS CREATIONS M (Stylized/Design), MAX’IS CREATIONS, and THE WORLD

the Copyrighted Photographs.” Id. ¶ 52.

different online stores.” Id. at ¶¶ 57; 58.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants have willfully infringed on Plaintiff’s

their e-commerce stores:

107. Defendants are promoting, advertising, distributing, selling, and/or

110. Defendants are pirating the Copyrighted Photographs featuring the

MCINC Marks featured in the images to evade trademark infringement

114. Defendants are actively using, promoting and otherwise advertising,

115. Defendant’s [sic] counterfeit and confusingly similar imitations of

117. Defendants advertise their e-commerce stores, including their

118. In so advertising their stores and products, Defendants improperly

120. Specifically, Defendants are using counterfeits and infringements of

in this action had full knowledge of Plaintiff’s exclusive license of the

127. Defendants are engaging in the above-described illegal

Id. at ¶¶ 107–11; 114; 115; 117; 118; 120; 125–27.

exhibits in support of the instant motion. [ECF Nos. 84; 84-1–7].

II. Applicable Legal Standard

F.3d 1210, 1215 & n.13 (11th Cir. 2009)).

the decision to hold an evidentiary hearing to the court’s discretion”).

patents, copyrights, and trademarks, among others).”).

In addition to subject matter jurisdiction, a court must also have personal

jurisdiction over each defendant. “A judgment rendered in the absence of personal

defendant and may raise the issue sua sponte.” Id.

“The concept of personal jurisdiction comprises two distinct components:

amenability to jurisdiction and service of process. Amenability to jurisdiction means that

Service of process is a jurisdictional requirement. “Generally, where service of

(11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2022).

Court granted. [ECF Nos. 6;11].

The Court authorized Plaintiff to serve Defendants as follows:

[ECF No. 11, p. 3 (emphasis added)].

Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-23480-CIV, 2022 WL 16756952, at

Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 8:21-CV-1261-VMC-JSS, 2022 WL

authorizing alternate service of process).

People’s Republic of China . . . or other foreign countries and/or redistribute products

establishing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.”

personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants.”).

authorizing alternative service” and:

[the] [d]efendants directly target their business activities toward consumers

No. 23-CV-21333, 2023 WL 3392684, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2023).

Similarly here, the Complaint alleges that:

61. Defendants are engaged in business in Florida but have not

63. Defendants target their business activities toward consumers

66. Defendants have purposefully directed some portion of their illegal

activities towards consumers in the state of Florida through the