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.

Decathlon S.A. and Decathlon USA LLC v. Alokele Hale LLC

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

June 13, 2019

DECATHLON S.A. AND DECATHLON USA LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
ALOKELE HALE LLC, d/b/a H20 NINJA, ALEXANDER KRIVOULIAN, Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

          Wes Reber Porter United States Magistrate Judge.

         Before the Court is Plaintiffs Decathlon S.A. and Decathlon USA LLC's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Alokele Hale LLC, [1] filed on April 30, 2019 (Motion). ECF No. 25. The Court found the Motion suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. ECF No. 28.

         The Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' Motion be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

         BACKGROUND

         According to the Complaint, Plaintiff Decathlon S.A., a sporting goods company, and Plaintiff Decathlon USA LLC, its distributor, sell a product known as the “Easybreath Snorkeling Mask” (Easybreath Mask) that features a clear, full-face lens surrounded by a rigid frame, a breathing tube centered at the top of the mask, and a valve at the bottom of the mask. ECF No. 1 ¶ 14, 16. The Easybreath Mask is protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D775, 722 S (the '722 patent), entitled “Mask with Snorkel” which the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued on January 3, 2017. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff Decathlon S.A. is the owner of the '722 patent. Id. Plaintiffs also own trade dress rights in the Easybreath Mask because its design, widespread sale, advertising, and promotion lead the public to understand that the trade dress signifies Plaintiff Decathlon S.A. as the designer and source of the mask. Id. ¶ 19. The Easybreath Mask trade dress has become famous. Id. ¶ 21.

         Defendant Alokele Hale began marketing a H2O Ninja snorkeling mask (H2O Mask) with a design that is nearly identical to the Easybreath Mask. Id. ¶ 27-28. Like the Easybreath Mask, the H2O Mask has a clear, full-face lens surrounded by a rigid frame, a breathing tube centered at the top of the mask, and a valve at the bottom of the mask. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff alleges that the H2O Mask mimics every key element of the Easybreath Mask trade dress and is substantially similar to the design shown in the '722 patent. Id. ¶ 29.

         Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on June 29, 2018, alleging patent infringement and violations of federal and state unfair competition practices. ECF No. 1. After Plaintiffs were unable to effect personal service on the corporate defendant, Defendant Alokele Hale, Defendant Alokele Hale was served via publication pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 634-35. See ECF Nos. 15, 20. Defendant Alokele Hale did not appear at the return hearing or file a response to the Complaint. See ECF No. 21. Default was entered against Defendant Alokele Hale on November 30, 2018. See ECF No. 24. The present Motion followed seeking default judgment and entry of a permanent injunction against Defendant Alokele Hale. See ECF No. 25.

         DISCUSSION

         Default judgment may be entered if the defendant has defaulted by failing to appear and the plaintiff's claim is for a “sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(1), (2). The granting or denial of a motion for default judgment is within the discretion of the court. Haw. Carpenters' Trust Funds v. Stone, 794 F.2d 508, 511-12 (9th Cir. 1986). Default judgments are ordinarily disfavored, and cases should be decided on their merits if reasonably possible. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986).

         A. Jurisdiction.

         Before considering the merits of default judgment, the Court has an affirmative obligation to determine whether or not it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over Defendant Alokele Hale. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“To avoid entering a default judgment that can later be successfully attacked as void, a court should determine whether it has the power, i.e., the jurisdiction, to enter the judgment in the first place.”).

         The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' federal claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Alokele Hale because Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Alokele Hale is a Hawaii limited liability company. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 8; ECF Nos. 20, 21.

         B. Default Judgment Factors

         Following a determination that jurisdiction is proper, the Court must consider whether default judgment is appropriate. The court should consider the following factors in deciding whether to grant a motion for default judgment:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff;
(2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim;
(3) the sufficiency of the complaint;
(4) the sum of money at stake in the action;
(5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts;
(6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ...

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.