Case 2:21-cv-04703-CBM-E Document 88 Filed 03/18/22 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2829

1 2 3

4

5

6

7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 TEE TURTLE, LLC Case No.: 2:21-CV-4703-CBM-(Ex)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S v. 13 MOTION FOR DEFAULT Anhui Leadershow Industrial Co., Ltd., JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT 14 et al., INJUNCTION

15 Defendants.

16 17 The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and 18 Permanent Injunction. (Dkt. No. 83 (the “Motion”).) Having considered the 19 Motion, the pleadings, files, and records of this matter, the Court GRANTS the 20 Motion and finds as follows: 21 1. The Verified Complaint, filed on June 9, 2021, asserts four causes of 22 action: (1) Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.; (2) Unfair 23 Competition, Lanham Act § 43, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) State Statutory Unfair 24 Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; and (4) Unfair Competition 25 under California Common Law. 26 2. On June 17, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application 27 for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Order to Show Cause Why a 28 1 Case 2:21-cv-04703-CBM-E Document 88 Filed 03/18/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:2830

1 Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (“OSC”) upon finding Plaintiff 2 demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the 3 absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in its favor, and an 4 injunction is in the public interest. (See Dkt. Nos. 18, 19 (citing Winter v. Nat. 5 Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).) 6 3. On June 17, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application 7 for an Order Granting Leave for Alternative Service by Electronic Means. (Dkt. 8 No. 20.) 9 4. The Court issued an order to show cause why a preliminary 10 injunction should not issue (the “OSC”), ordered Defendant to file an opposition 11 to the OSC no later than June 21, 2021, and stated that a “failure to show cause 12 why a preliminary injunction should not issue may result in the imposition of a 13 preliminary injunction against [Defendants] pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.” (Dkt. 14 No. 19.) 15 5. On June 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof of service reflecting service 16 of the Verified Complaint and Summons on all Defendants. (Dkt. No. 26.) 17 6. No opposition to the OSC was filed by Defendants, and Defendants 18 did not appear at the June 29, 2021 hearing on the OSC. Accordingly, the Court 19 issued a preliminary injunction against Defendants on June 30, 2021. (Dkt. No. 20 30.) 21 7. The Clerk entered default as to Complaint against all Defendants on 22 July 19, 2021. (Dkt. Nos. 32-79.) 23 8. Defendants were served with the Clerk’s entry of default on July 20, 24 2021. (Keyes Decl. ¶ 21.) 25 9. Defendants were served with notice of the instant Motion for Default 26 Judgment and Permanent Injunction on February 2, 2022. (Dkt. No. 84.) 27 10. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Defendants’ opposition to the Motion 28 was due on February 15, 2022 based on the March 8, 2022 noticed hearing date, 2 Case 2:21-cv-04703-CBM-E Document 88 Filed 03/18/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:2831

1 but no opposition was filed by Defendants and Defendants did not appear at the 2 hearing. 3 11. Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendants are not infants or incompetent 4 persons or in military services or otherwise exempted under the Soldier’s and 5 Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940. (Keyes Decl. ¶ 23.) 6 12. The Court finds the statutory damages requested by Plaintiff pursuant 7 to the Copyright Act in the amount of $40,000.00 against each of the nine 8 defendants (Dongguan Xinsheng Toys Co. Ltd., Guangzhou Orchard 9 Aromatherapy & Skincare Co., Ltd., Jinhua Hairong Import and Export Co., Ltd., 10 Long Way Wooden Toys & Crafts Co., Ltd., Ningbo Creative Import & Export 11 Co., Ltd., Shanghai Zhanhua Amusement Equipment Co., Ltd., Xiamen MINE 12 Trading Co., Ltd., Yangzhou Caisheng Handicraft Product Co., Ltd., and Yiwu 13 Jianyu E-Commerce Firm) who have not complied with the Court’s preliminary 14 injunction order as of January 27, 2022 (hereinafter, the “Non-Complying 15 Defaulting Defendants”) and $25,000.00 against each of the remaining 232 16 Defendants who have complied with the Court’s preliminary injunction order 17 (hereinafter, “Complying Defaulting Defendants”), are within the permissible 18 range of statutory damages permitted under the Copyright Act. See STJ Enter. 19 Inc. v. H Grp. Intl, Inc., 2020 WL 4286875, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2020); Star 20 Fabrics, Inc. v. Wet Seal, Inc., 2015 WL 12746712, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 21 2015). 22 13. The Court finds the factors in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471- 23 72 (9th Cir. 1986), weigh in favor of granting the Motion for Default Judgment. 24 14. The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of 25 irreparable harm pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) because Plaintiff states a claim 26 for trade dress infringement and has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the 27 merits of its trade dress infringement claim. Defendants have not appeared and 28 therefore present no evidence rebutting the presumption of irreparable harm. 3 Case 2:21-cv-04703-CBM-E Document 88 Filed 03/18/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:2832

1 Moreover, Plaintiff submits evidence that it has been harmed by the loss of 2 goodwill, damage to its reputation, and the inability to execute deals with large 3 retailers based on Defendants selling the infringing products, and it is harmed each 4 time Defendants sell the infringing products. 5 15. Plaintiff offers evidence demonstrating the Non-Complying 6 Defaulting Defendants have continued to offer infringing products for sale in 7 violation of the Court’s preliminary injunction order. Therefore, the Court finds 8 monetary damages would not remedy the harm to Plaintiff from Defendants’ 9 continued infringement. 10 16. There is no evidence Defendants will be harmed by an injunction, 11 and any hardship as a result of enjoining Defendants from infringing Plaintiff’s 12 copyrights and trade dress rights is irrelevant in determining whether to issue an 13 injunction. See Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 125 F.3d 824, 829 (9th 14 Cir. 1997); Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Ozwear Connection Pty Ltd., 2014 WL 15 4679001, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2014). Plaintiff, however, submits evidence 16 it will be harmed by the loss of goodwill, damage to its reputation, and the 17 inability to execute deals with large retailers if Defendants are not enjoined from 18 selling the infringing products. 19 17. The public interest is served by upholding rights under the Copyright 20 Act and Lanham Act. See Internet Specialties W., Inc. v. Milon-DiGiorgio 21 Enters., Inc., 559 F.3d 985, 993 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2009); State of Idaho Potato 22 Comm’n v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc., 425 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 2005); 23 Charter Sch. Cap., Inc. v. Charter Asset Mgmt. Fund, LP, 2014 WL 12560776, at 24 *11 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2014). 25 18. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff demonstrates the irreparable 26 injury, inadequate remedy available at law, balance of hardships, and public 27 interest factors weigh in favor of a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. 28 MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 4 Case 2:21-cv-04703-CBM-E Document 88 Filed 03/18/22 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:2833

1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment 2 and Permanent Injunction. Judgment shall be entered consistent herewith in the 3 amount of $40,000.00 against each of the Non-Complying Defaulting Defendants 4 and $25,000.00 against each of the Complying Defaulting Defendants. 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 7 SIGNED this 18th day of March, 2022 at 1:13 p.m. 8

9

10 CONSUELO B. MARSHALL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5