Tiger Sugar Franchise USA Inc. v. Win Luck Trading Inc.
1:22-cv-03724
E.D.N.YMar 19, 2024Background
- Tiger Sugar Franchise USA Inc. (Tiger Sugar) sued Win Luck Trading Inc. (Win Luck NY), alleging trademark infringement and related claims regarding the sale of counterfeit “Tiger Sugar” products in the U.S. market.
- Tiger Sugar holds the exclusive rights to the Tiger Sugar trademarks for the U.S. and claims significant investment in branding, alleging irreparable trademark harm and substantial monetary losses.
- The alleged infringing goods were traced via invoice to a New Jersey address associated with another entity, Win Luck NJ, which is a legally distinct company from Win Luck NY (the named defendant).
- Plaintiff sought default judgment and significant damages after Win Luck NY did not respond; Win Luck NJ (not a party to the case) moved to vacate the default and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court found the plaintiff’s complaint failed to specifically tie the alleged infringing activity to Win Luck NY; its evidence referenced sales by Win Luck NJ, not the named defendant.
- Magistrate Judge Pollak recommended denying both plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and Win Luck NJ's motions, but permitted Tiger Sugar to file a Second Amended Complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Default judgment against Win Luck NY | Win Luck NY distributed counterfeit products and failed to appear; judgment proper | No appearance (Win Luck NY); Win Luck NJ is unrelated | Denied—no adequate pleading tying conduct to Win Luck NY |
| Vacate clerk’s default (by Win Luck NJ) | Motions improper—Win Luck NJ not a party; only Win Luck NY named | Win Luck NJ believes it was improperly defaulted | Denied—Win Luck NJ is not a party to this action |
| Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction | Not directly addressed—Win Luck NJ is not the defendant | Win Luck NJ has no relevant contacts; is not defendant | Denied—motion not proper by a non-party |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiff should be allowed to cure deficiencies | N/A | Granted—leave to file Second Amended Complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1981) (sets standard for vacating entry of default and disfavors default judgments)
- Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (sets out factors for vacating default and cautions default is a last resort)
- Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect, Inc., 653 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1981) (court need not accept conclusory allegations even on default judgment)
- Rolls-Royce PLC v. Rolls-Royce USA, Inc., 688 F. Supp. 2d 150 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (court’s responsibility to ensure factual allegations properly support liability)