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.

Cascade Designs, Inc. v. Jab Distributors, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

April 24, 2019

CASCADE DESIGNS, INC., a Washington corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
JAB DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, an Illinois corporation, Defendant.

          DEFAULT JUDGMENT

          Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge.

         THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Plaintiff Cascade Designs, Inc. (“CDI”)'s Motion for Judgment on Default, docket no. 10, (the “Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 55(b)(2); the Court having considered CDI's Motion and the accompanying Declaration of Douglas A. Grady, exhibits and all other filings and papers in this matter; and the Court otherwise being fully advised and for good cause shown; the Court hereby enters the following Judgment:

         1. CDI has established Defendant JAB Distributors, LLC (“JAB”) is liable on all of the following seven Counts asserted in CDI's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) based on CDI's well-pled allegations and the facts presented in the Declaration of Douglas A. Grady, which are assumed to be true because JAB has failed to appear in this matter:

a. Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114;
b. Count II: Federal Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c);
c. Count III: Federal Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1);
d. Count IV: Washington Common Law Unfair Competition;
e. Count V: Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.020;
f. Count VI: Cancellation of Registration No. 4, 538, 345; and
g. Count VII: Cancellation of Registration No. 5, 138, 979.

         2. JAB having failed to answer or respond to CDI's allegations, the Court takes as true CDI's well-pleaded allegations, and concludes that CDI is entitled to default judgment on all seven Counts of the Complaint. See Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992) (“In reviewing a default judgment, this court must take the well-pleaded factual allegations . . . as true. However, necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not established by default.”) (citation omitted).

         NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that CDI's Motion for Judgment on Default is GRANTED in part.

         It is further ORDERED that judgment on Counts I through VII of the Complaint is ENTERED in favor of CDI and against JAB.

         It is further ORDERED that the Commissioner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office is DIRECTED to cancel ...


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.