See Chanel, Inc. v. Casondra Tshimanga, Case No. Life, 84 F.3d at 567 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72, 105 S.Ct. Although none of the parties is a California citizen, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant sells the infringing products to California citizens, that Plaintiffs operate boutiques in this forum, and that they have suffered damages as a result of Defendant's infringing activities in this forum. DiStefano v. Carozzi North America, Inc., 286 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir.2001); see also PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander, 103 F.3d 1105, 1108 (2d Cir. This site can longer be accessed because it was shut down following Gucci's lawsuit, but archived versions of the website can be browsed at The Internet Archive Wayback Machine. [6] Federal law and state common law infringement claims are analyzed identically. See, e.g., eBay, 576 F.Supp.2d at 505 (online auction house); Cartier Intern. "Many courts have permitted the exercise of personal jurisdiction based on a defendant's interactive website in combination with other relevant forum contacts." Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may enter a default judgment where the clerk, under Rule 55(a), has previously entered the party's default based upon failure to plead or otherwise defend the action. See, e.g., Kernan, 175 F.3d at 240; Metro. Plaintiffs now bring a motion for default judgment asking for an award of statutory damages, costs, prejudgment interest and injunctive relief. According to Defendants, Durango has only five employees, and has no offices, no employees, and no property located in New York. at 109-10 ("When [a service provider] has reason to suspect that users of its service are infringing a protected mark, it may not shield itself from learning of the particular infringing transactions by looking the other way."). § 1117(c)(2). Weighing these factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to a significant award of statutory damages. The Gucci Marks are a series of marks—the Gucci name, the Gucci crest, the "non-interlocking GG monogram," the "repeating GG design," etc.—registered by Gucci with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of entry of default judgment. To the extent the current Registrars do not facilitate the transfer of the domain names to Plaintiffs' control within ten (10) days of receipt of this judgment, the United States based Registry shall, within thirty (30) days, transfer the Subject Domain Names to a United States based Registrar of Plaintiffs' choosing, and that Registrar shall transfer the Subject Domain Names to Plaintiff Gucci; and The due process analysis for jurisdiction likewise requires "purposeful availment" and I find that it exists in this case for all defendants. I need not resolve this issue. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984) (finding purposeful direction where defendant published magazines in Ohio and circulated them in the forum state, New Hampshire)). First, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that they own the twenty-two Marks, thus satisfying the first two elements of the claim. In Support of FDJ, Ex. A, B, C. This evidence establishes that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the respective trademarks presented in the RJN. Most significantly, Gucci claims that both Woodforest and Frontline established credit card processing services for TheBagAddiction.com, as well as similar websites, which sold counterfeit Gucci products nationwide, and in particular to New York customers. As a preliminary matter, this Court has an affirmative obligation to determine whether or not it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Wang Huoqing, who is alleged to reside and/or conduct substantial business in the People's Republic of China. 4812(LMM), 2000 WL 1678039, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. See Compl. In this trademark infringement action, Plaintiffs Gucci America, Inc. (“Gucci”), Bottega Veneta International, S.A.R.L. Other courts that have addressed this issue have concluded that where the infringing acts are based on very similar marks, it may be appropriate to take this fact into account when calculating statutory damages to ensure that the Plaintiffs do not receive a windfall. at 1320. Moreover, it was their credit card processing systems, according to Gucci, that actually allowed for the purchase of counterfeit products in the New York market. 2010) case opinion from the Southern District of New York US Federal District Court Kirk Decl. Stanley Lawrence Lane, Jr., Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen, New York, NY, Charles Patrick Kennedy, Gregg Adam Paradise, William L. Mentlik, Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP, Westfield, NJ, Christopher Clark Stoneback, G. Trenton Hooper, Herbert I. See Compl. In Support of FDJ ¶ 3. ¶¶ 3–5; Feldman Decl. Service”). ¶ 48. First Am. In Tuli, the Ninth Circuit explained that where a plaintiff seeks default judgement, the court may not assume the existence of personal jurisdiction, even though ordinarily personal jurisdiction is a defense that may be waived, because a judgment in the absence of personal jurisdiction is void. Service ¶ 3; See Gray & Co., 913 F.2d at 770. 1 (Patent Office registration certificates). Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir.2004). Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading or otherwise appear in this action. 96 Civ. Id. On the basis of these allegations, Plaintiffs assert two claims: (1) trademark counterfeiting and infringement under 15 U.S.C. Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that Woodforest printed out a number of pages that displayed goods that were for sale, including counterfeit Gucci products, and maintained these pages as part of their business records. The registration number with NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA) is #4534467. Applying that methodology to this case, there are eight Gucci marks which are substantially similar to other Marks for which Gucci is requesting damages. Kearns Decl. Bottega operates boutiques within this judicial district. ¶¶ 9, 27–29, 34. As such, Gucci can proceed with its action against Defendants if it can show that they (1) intentionally induced the website to infringe through the sale of counterfeit goods or (2) knowingly supplied services to websites and had sufficient control over infringing activity to merit liability. These fact-specific claims are enough to at least infer that Frontline knew or consciously avoided knowing that the counterfeit products were sold on TheBagAddiction.com. Similarly, these defendants allegedly provided an "essential factor" to the infringement because the goods could not be sold and shipped without their credit card services. Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Servs., Inc., 955 F.2d 1143, 1150 (7th Cir.1992); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intern. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Sinatra v. Nat'l Enquirer, 854 F.2d 1191, 1199 (9th Cir.1988)). First Am. Although the concept of control arose out of the flea market context and is based on common law landlordtenant tort principles, see Hard Rock, 955 F.2d at 1149-50, the concept of control is not limited to that context. Compl. This means you can view content but cannot create content. On the other hand, Gucci has failed to plausibly support a claim that either Woodforest or Frontline intentionally induced Laurette to sell counterfeit products. “Granting or denying a motion for default judgment is a matter within the court's discretion.” Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enterprises, Inc., 2010 WL 2889490, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Gucci is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York City. April 19, 2010) (ordering transfer of domain names on default judgment where plaintiff asserted claims for trademark infringement and false designation of origin under Lanham Act but did not assert cyberpiracy claim). eBay, 600 F.3d at 107. Woodforest allegedly processed over $1 million in transactions for counterfeit items, and made over $30,000 from the fees on these transactions. Using the Defendants' relationship with Laurette as an example, they note that over 15,000 orders totaling more than $2 million was processed during the period in which they were serviced by Frontline and Woodforest, as established by Durango. Therefore, the Court finds that “but for” Defendant's infringing activity, Plaintiffs would not have been injured. Balenciaga has one Mark which is substantially similar to another one of the Marks for which it is requesting damages and therefore, for calculation purposes, Balenciaga's Marks would be reduced to two. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 425 F.3d 158, 165 (2d Cir.2005); Kernan v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc., 175 F.3d 236, 240 (2d Cir.1999). Find their customers, contact information, and details on 1134 shipments. The Supreme Court has determined that liability can extend "beyond those who actually mislabel goods with the mark of another." 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982). Neither intent nor actual confusion are necessary to establish a likelihood of confusion. ¶ 17; Feldman Decl. [7] Defendants challenge the meaning of both "replica" and "high risk," and claim that both are much more innocuous terms than Gucci suggests. Rachel Waranch. 494, 497 (S.D.N.Y.1997); Parker Waichman, 2010 WL 1956871, at *9. Finally, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that they actually purchased an item offered on one of the websites controlled by Wang Huoqing and determined that it infringed. Though both companies allegedly advertised for high risk merchants, they did not bring Laurette to the table the way Durango allegedly did.