Safex Foundation, Inc. v. Safelaunch Ventures Limited
Civil Action No. 2022-0572
| D.D.C. | Aug 15, 2025Background
- Safex Foundation, Inc. developed and marketed cryptocurrencies under the 'Safex' brand since 2015, using the Safex Mark and ticker symbols SFT, SFX, and WSFX.
- SafeLaunch Ventures Limited, a company based in the British Virgin Islands with execs in Dubai, began selling a competing cryptocurrency called 'SafeX' with the ticker 'SFEX' in 2021.
- Safex alleged SafeLaunch's use of 'SafeX' and 'SFEX' infringed its trademark, causing customer confusion and irreparable harm to its brand.
- SafeLaunch initially challenged the court’s personal jurisdiction, but when ordered to participate in jurisdictional discovery, failed to do so after its counsel withdrew and it did not obtain replacement counsel.
- The clerk entered default against SafeLaunch due to its continued non-participation, prompting Safex to move for default judgment.
- The Court granted default judgment in part, holding SafeLaunch liable for trademark infringement and granting injunctive and declaratory relief, with damages and attorneys’ fees subject to further evidentiary submissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Jurisdiction | SafeLaunch has submitted to jurisdiction by failing to respond to discovery | No minimum contacts with D.C. or U.S. | Jurisdictional objection forfeited due to non-compliance |
| Trademark Infringement Liability | Owns valid, distinctive mark used first; SafeLaunch's use causes confusion | Not actively defended (defaulted) | SafeLaunch liable for infringement |
| Entitlement to Injunctive Relief | Continued infringement causes irreparable harm and confusion | Not actively defended (defaulted) | Permanent injunction granted |
| Damages & Attorney’s Fees | Willful infringement justifies damages and fees | Not actively defended (defaulted) | Entitled to submit evidence to support award |
Key Cases Cited
- Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (waiver of personal jurisdiction defense through failure to comply with discovery orders)
- Blinded Veterans Ass’n v. Blinded Am. Veterans Found., 872 F.2d 1035 (distinctiveness and secondary meaning of trademarks under Lanham Act)
- Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc. v. Conservative Digest, Inc., 821 F.2d 800 (standard for awarding attorneys’ fees to the prevailing plaintiff in exceptional trademark infringement cases)