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.

Phoenix Entertainment Partners LLC v. Danny Lees Place, LLC

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

July 19, 2016

PHOENIX ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
DANNY LEES PLACE, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER, JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT DANNY LEES PLACE, LLC

          MARY GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court upon the Motion of Plaintiff, Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC (hereinafter “PEP”), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2), for a judgment by default against Defendant Danny Lees Place, LLC (hereinafter “Defendant”). Based upon a review of the evidence before the Court, the Court makes the following:

         FINDINGS OF FACT

         1. On July 2, 2015, PEP commenced this lawsuit against Defendant alleging trademark infringement involving counterfeiting, unfair competition and a violation of South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act.

         2. On July 21, 2015, Defendant was duly served with the Complaint and a Summons issued by the Clerk.

         3. Defendant failed to answer or other response to the Complaint within the time required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 12.

         4. At all times relevant to this action, PEP was the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 1, 923, 448 and 4, 099, 045, both for the word mark SOUND CHOICE®, and of U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 2, 000, 725 and 4, 099, 052, both for the design mark SOUND CHOICE & Design® (the “Marks”).

         5. PEP consistently used the ® symbol to denote the registration of the Marks and thereby to give notice to the public that the Marks are federally registered.

         6. Defendant has copied, shared, distributed, and/or sold copies of the accompaniment tracks or karaoke songs marked with the Marks via hard drives, USB drives, CD-Rs, or the Internet.

         7. Defendant has used a reproduction, counterfeit, or copy of the Marks in connection with providing karaoke services, by displaying that reproduction, counterfeit, or copy during the provision of its services.

         8. Defendant did not have a license to create digitized copies of PEP’s karaoke discs or of the karaoke music tracks contained thereon.

         9. An unauthorized digitized copy of PESP’s karaoke discs or karaoke music tracks is a counterfeit.

         10. Defendant did not have a license to use counterfeit tracks in connection with its provision of karaoke services.

         11. Defendant’s unauthorized use of counterfeits of the Marks is likely to cause consumer confusion by deceiving Defendant’s customers and patrons into believing that Defendant’s ...


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.