United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
ORDER, JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST
DEFENDANT DANNY LEES PLACE, LLC
GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE.
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:
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.
July 21, 2015, Defendant was duly served with the Complaint
and a Summons issued by the Clerk.
Defendant failed to answer or other response to the Complaint
within the time required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 12.
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
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.
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.
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.
Defendant did not have a license to create digitized copies
of PEP’s karaoke discs or of the karaoke music tracks
unauthorized digitized copy of PESP’s karaoke discs or
karaoke music tracks is a counterfeit.
Defendant did not have a license to use counterfeit tracks in
connection with its provision of karaoke services.
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