United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
ORDER, JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST
DEFENDANTS MULLIN CORPORATION AND DANIEL O’NEILL D/B/A
BIG SOUTH ENTERTAINMENT
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 Defendants Mullin Corporation
(hereinafter “Mullin”) and Daniel O’Neill
d/b/a Big South Entertainment (hereinafter
“O’Neill” and collectively with Mullin, the
“Defendants”). Based upon a review of the
evidence before the Court, the Court makes the following:
August 6, 2015, PEP commenced this lawsuit against Defendants
alleging trademark infringement involving counterfeiting,
unfair competition and a violation of South Carolina’s
Unfair Trade Practices Act.
August 18, 2015, Defendants were duly served with the
Complaint and Summonses issued by the Clerk.
Defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond 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.
O’Neill 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
Mullin hired O’Neill to provide commercial karaoke
services at its bar on at least more than one (1) occasion
and had the right and ability to control whether its
contractors use authentic or counterfeit materials to provide
Mullin had actual knowledge of the infringing and counterfeit
nature of O’Neill’s karaoke materials.
Despite that knowledge, Mullin refused to terminate
O’Neill’s services and continued to receive a
financial benefit from the provision of infringing karaoke
services at its establishment by O’Neill, through the
attraction of paying patrons to its establishment.
Defendants 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 their services.
Defendants did not have a license to create digitized copies
of PEP’s karaoke discs or of the ...