United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Outlaw Laboratory has filed a motion for default judgment
against Defendant gas stations. (ECF No. 166.) Defendants
allegedly sold illegal male-enhancement pills that were in
competition with products produced by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1,
PageID.8, ¶ 9.) Defendants have not filed a response.
filed its complaint in August 2018. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants
failed to answer or make appearances before the court,
resulting in entries of default. Defaults were entered on
November 15, 2018, December 11, 2018, and February 20, 2019.
(ECF Nos. 117, 133, 134, 148.) After failing to remove the
defaults for eight months at the minimum, Plaintiff filed the
Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) gives the court the power to
enter a default judgment after a default has been entered by
the clerk. Disney Enterprises v. Farmer, 427
F.Supp.2d 807, 814 (E.D. Tenn. 2006); AF Holdings LLC v.
Bossard, 976 F.Supp.2d 927, 930 (W.D. Mich. 2013). When
considering a motion for default judgment, “well-
pleaded factual allegations in the [c]omplaint, except those
relating to damages, are taken as true.” Ford Motor
Co. v. Cross, 441 F.Supp.2d 837, 848 (E.D. Mich. 2006)
(citing Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105,
110-11 (6th Cir. 1995)); Flynn v. People's Choice
Home Loans, Inc., 330 Fed. App'x 452, 455 (6th Cir.
has pleaded valid claims against Defendants. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants engaged in deceptive marketing to
steer consumers away from Plaintiff's male-enhancement
products and toward illegal male-enhancement products. (ECF
No. 1, PageID.31-35, ¶¶ 156-73.) This constitutes a
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125, Mich. Comp. Laws §
445.903, and Michigan's common law for unfair
competition. Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d
267, 270 (6th Cir. 2018) (concerning a competitor's
action for false and misleading advertisements under 15
U.S.C. § 1125); Action Auto Glass v. Auto Glass
Specialists, 134 F.Supp.2d 897, 902-03 (W.D. Mich. 2001)
(involving a competitor's suit for deceptive trade
practices under Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903); In re
Sprint Comm. Co., L.P., 592 N.W.2d 825, 832 (Mich. Ct.
App. 1999) (discussing the prohibition of unfair or
misleading advertising under Michigan common law in the
context of a competitor's suit). On the issue of damages,
Plaintiff has presented convincing evidence through economic
analysis that each Defendant obtained a profit of $62, 045.24
from the period of 2012 to 2018. (ECF No. 166-2.) Given that
Defendants' violations entitle Plaintiff to
Defendants' profits, the court will award Plaintiff $62,
045.24 per Defendant. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); Balance
Dynamics Corp. v. Schmitt Indus., Inc., 204 F.3d 683,
688 (6th Cir. 2000).
also seeks $1, 717.44 per Defendant in attorneys' fees
and costs. Plaintiff has provided the court with a detailed
accounting of hours billed and litigation fees. (ECF No.
166-3.) The Lanham Act allows the court to award
attorneys' fees and costs “in exceptional
cases.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); Coach, Inc. v.
Goodfellow, 717 F.3d 498, 505-06 (6th Cir. 2013). To
meet this standard, Defendants' actions must be
“malicious, fraudulent, willful, or deliberate.”
Audi AG v. D'Amato, 469 F.3d 534, 551 (6th Cir.
2006); Eagles, Ltd. v. American Eagle Foundation,
356 F.3d 724, 728 (6th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff alleges that the
Federal Drug Administration, the Michigan Attorney General,
and the attorneys general of forty-four other states have
issued warnings regarding the illegal products sold by
Defendants. (ECF No. 1, PageID.5-6, ¶¶ 1-2.)
Plaintiff further alleges that it sent letters directly to
Defendants, demanding that Defendants cease and desist.
(Id., ¶ 2.) Despite these attempts, Defendants
continued to sell illicit and potentially hazardous products.
(Id.) Assuming these facts as true, the court finds
enough evidence for willful and deliberate violations of the
Lanham Act. Cross, 441 F.Supp.2d at 848;
D'Amato, 469 F.3d at 551. Plaintiff is entitled
to $1, 717.44 per Defendant in attorneys' fees and costs.
has properly obtained entries of default against Defendants.
Since Plaintiff has alleged valid claims, its motion for
default judgment will be granted. Plaintiff has also shown
that Defendants' actions were willful and deliberate,
entitling Plaintiff to attorneys' fees and costs.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for
Default Judgment (ECF No. 166) is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' shall each pay Plaintiff
$62, 045.24 for violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1125, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 445.903, and Michigan's common law for
unfair competition and $1, 717.44 for attorneys' fees and
costs under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), totaling $63, 762.68
hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was
mailed to counsel of record on this date, October 30, 2019,
by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
 Defendant Michigan Stop & Go, Inc.
has two gas stations that allegedly sold the illegal products
at issue. One is located in Dearborn, Michigan and the other
in Allen Park, Michigan. (ECF No. 1, PageID.27, ¶¶
133-34.) Judgment amounts detailed in this ...