Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Commscope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Commscope (U.S.A.) International Group Co.

August 18, 2011

COMMSCOPE, INC. OF NORTH CAROLINA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COMMSCOPE (U.S.A.) INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LTD. DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court in this trademark infringement action, filed by CommScope, Inc., of North Carolina ("Plaintiff") against Commscope (U.S.A.) International Group Co., Ltd. ("Defendant"), is Plaintiff's motion for default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). (Dkt. No. 12, Attach 3.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is granted.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

Liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following six claims against Defendant: (1) trademark infringement under the Lanham Act; (2) false designation of origin under the Lanham Act; (3) trademark infringement under New York State common law and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 360-k; (4) injury to business reputation and dilution under New York State common law and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 360-l; (5) unfair competition under New York State common law; and (6) deceptive acts and practices under New York State common law and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349. (Dkt. No. 1.) Generally, in support of these claims, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendant has used Plaintiff's registered trademark in association with its sale of goods or services similar to those sold by Plaintiff (i.e., communications products), without Plaintiff's permission, in both the United States and China. (Id.) Familiarity with the remaining factual allegations supporting these five claims is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review by the parties.

B. Plaintiff's Service of Its Complaint and Defendant's Failure to Answer

On November 4, 2010, Plaintiff served its Complaint on Defendant. (Dkt. No. 7.) As of the date of this Decision and Order, Defendant has filed no Answer to that Complaint. (See generally Docket Sheet.)

C. Clerk's Entry of Default and Defendant's Non-Appearance

On December 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed and served a request that the Clerk of the Court enter Defendant's default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). (Dkt. No. 9.) On December 6, 2010, the Clerk entered such default. (Dkt. No. 11.) As of the date of this Decision and Order, Defendant has not appeared and/or attempted to cure that entry of default. (See generally Docket Sheet.)

D. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Defendant's Non-Response

On January 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed and served a motion for default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). (Dkt. Nos. 12-13.) As of the date of this Decision and Order, Defendant has filed no response to that motion. (See generally Docket Sheet.) Generally, in support of its motion for default judgment, Plaintiff argues that it has satisfied the two-step default judgment process required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. (Dkt. No. 12, Attach 3, at 5.) Familiarity with the particular grounds of Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review of the parties.

II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARD

"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides a two-step process that the Court must follow before it may enter a default judgment against a defendant." Robertson v. Doe, 05-CV-7046, 2008 WL 2519894, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2008). "First, under Rule 55(a), when a party fails to 'plead or otherwise defend . . . the clerk must enter the party's default.'" Robertson, 2008 WL 2519894, at *3 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 55[a]). "Second, pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), the party seeking default judgment is required to present its application for entry of judgment to the court." Id. "Notice of the application must be sent to the defaulting party so that it has an opportunity to show cause why the court should not enter a default judgment." Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 55[b][2]).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Liability

After carefully considering Plaintiff's unopposed motion, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has met its modest threshold burden in establishing entitlement to a default judgment against Defendant on the issue of liability, under the circumstances.*fn1 The Court notes that Plaintiff's motion on the issue of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.