Sik Gaek, Inc. v. Yogi's II, Inc.
682 F. App'x 52
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Sik Gaek, Inc. sued Yogi’s II, Inc. (Yogi’s) and Daniel Kim asserting trademark and related claims; Yogi’s did not appear.
- District court denied Sik Gaek’s motion for default judgment against Yogi’s for lack of proof of effective service.
- Sik Gaek sought leave to amend its complaint to add claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1119 (trademark cancellation) and 1120 (fraudulent registration); the court denied leave.
- Sik Gaek moved for sanctions and for disqualification of Kim’s counsel; the magistrate denied those motions and Sik Gaek failed to timely object.
- Kim had an initial default entered against him, later set aside by the district court; Sik Gaek appealed multiple rulings, including the denial of default judgment and denial of leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Default judgment against nonappearing Yogi’s | Yogi’s was subject to default and judgment should be entered | Yogi’s was not properly served | Affirmed denial — insufficient evidence of proper service |
| Leave to amend to add § 1119 trademark-cancellation claim | Should be allowed to add § 1119 claim (including against Kim) | Amendment untimely and § 1119 targets the registered owner (Yogi’s) | Denied as abuse-of-procedure; § 1119 properly pursued against Yogi’s, not Kim |
| Leave to amend to add § 1120 fraudulent-registration claim | Sik Gaek contends damages flow from fraud and supports § 1120 claim | Sik Gaek failed to plead damages causally tied to the alleged fraudulent registration | Denied as futile — plaintiff failed to allege damages "sustained in consequence" of registration |
| Setting aside Kim’s default; sanctions and counsel disqualification | Default should remain; sanctions and disqualification warranted | Good-cause factors support setting aside default; no timely objections to magistrate on sanctions/disqualification | Affirmed: default set aside (no willfulness, no prejudice, meritorious defenses); sanctions/disqualification issues not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Shah v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Civil Serv., 168 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 1999) (standard of review for default-judgment rulings)
- Covino v. Vt. Dep't of Corr., 933 F.2d 128 (2d Cir. 1991) (default-judgment review and service principles)
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) (timeliness and leave-to-amend considerations)
- Smith v. Hogan, 794 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 2015) (standards for abuse-of-discretion and futility review)
- New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2005) (preference for resolving disputes on the merits)
- Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (factors for setting aside defaults: willfulness, prejudice, meritorious defense)
- Spence v. Md. Cas. Co., 995 F.2d 1147 (2d Cir. 1993) (preservation requirement for appellate review of discovery and related rulings)