Default Judgment in Trademark Infringement: What the Zafèm Case Teaches Us

By Haitianbeatz

Why would a band ignore repeated cease and desist letters, keep using a mark after the USPTO (United State Patent and Trademark Office) flags a problem, and then skip court? In a trademark fight tied to the stylized mark “Zafem World Entertainment”, that is exactly what happened. A judge has now granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment in part. The Clerk first entered the defendants’ default under Rule 55(a), no one opposed the motion, and the court accepted the well pleaded liability facts as true.

Here is the setup in plain English. Plaintiffs (Wiss Joseph And Marie Joseph own a registered mark tied to Haitian-American entertainment and have used it for years to promote concerts and events. Defandant (Zafèm) tried to register “Zafem,” lost at the USPTO, then kept using the name on a website and an album. They ignored cease and desist letters, did not appear, and did not defend. The court moved forward with a default judgment and granted relief in part. This is exactly what is stated in the written ruling by the judge.

In this article, you will learn what a default judgment is, how courts decide it in trademark cases, and what both brand owners and defendants should do when things heat up.

Default Judgment in Trademark Infringement, Explained

Default judgment is the court’s way of resolving a case when a defendant fails to show up or otherwise defend. It is a two-step process. First, the Clerk enters default. Then, the judge decides whether to enter a final judgment. On default, the court treats liability facts in a well pleaded complaint as true, but it still reviews remedies like damages or injunctions.

In the “Zafem World Entertainment” case, the court had a complaint that showed registered rights, use in music and live events, and ongoing use by Zafèm despite notice. The plaintiffs moved for default judgment, the motion went unopposed, and the court granted the motion in part.

What are the upsides and risks?

• For plaintiffs: speed, clarity, and relief without discovery from the other side.

• For defendants: loss of defenses, a record that treats well pleaded facts as true, and a higher chance of injunctive relief and monetary awards.

Rule 55(a) and 55(b) in plain English

• Rule 55(a): the Clerk enters default when a defendant fails to plead or defend.

• Rule 55(b): the court reviews the record and may enter default judgment.

• Why two steps help: the Clerk’s entry locks in the default, then the judge checks jurisdiction, service, the law, and the requested relief. A motion can be unopposed, but the judge still reviews it.

What facts the court accepts as true, and what still needs proof

• Liability facts: if they are well pleaded, the court treats them as true on default.

• Damages: not automatic. Plaintiffs must supply evidence to support money, profits, or statutory damages.

• Injunctions: courts still ask for a short showing of harm, irreparable injury, and why an order is needed.

  
  

How this applies to the “Zafem World Entertainment” mark

• Plaintiffs alleged ownership of a registered, stylized mark, “Zafem World Entertainment.”

• Defendants did not respond. The Clerk entered default. The court granted the motion to the extent stated.

• The court treated the complaint’s liability facts as true, then weighed remedies based on the proof provided.

Judges do not rubber-stamp defaults. They check several basics before entering judgment, even when the motion is unopposed.

At a high level, trademark liability turns on three elements: ownership of a valid mark, use in commerce by the defendant without consent, and likelihood of confusion.

Proving ownership and use in commerce

• Show a valid mark. A federal registration is strong proof of validity and ownership.

• Show use in commerce. Point to sales, ads, listings, websites, social posts, or shows that bear the mark.

• Connect the dots. Explain how the accused use overlaps with the goods or services covered by the plaintiff’s mark.

Likelihood of confusion made simple

Confusion means buyers might think the goods or services come from the same source.

On default, the court can accept well pleaded facts that support confusion. Plaintiffs should still include specific facts that show why confusion makes sense.

Jurisdiction, service, and notice still matter

Courts must confirm jurisdiction and proper service before entering judgment. If service was flawed, a default can fall apart even if the defendant stayed silent. The docket should show Rule 55(a) entry of default before the judge grants relief.

What relief the court can grant on default

Courts can grant several types of relief when the record supports it:

• Injunctions: stop use of the mark, take down infringing pages, transfer domains or social handles when justified.

• Monetary relief: actual damages, defendant’s profits, or statutory damages in counterfeiting cases, supported by evidence or reasonable estimates.

• Costs and attorney’s fees: available in exceptional cases or where statutes allow.

• Corrective actions: destruction of infringing goods or materials, if warranted.

Background

Plaintiffs registered the stylized mark “Zafem World Entertainment” in 2021 after nearly a decade of use to promote Haitian-American concerts, dances, and related entertainment events. Their musical entertainment products became known across the Haitian-American music scene.

In May 2023, defendants attempted to register “Zafem” for competing music services. The USPTO rejected the application because it would infringe plaintiffs’ rights. The Office found that the use of “Zafem” would likely cause confusion with the registered mark.

Defendants did not stop. They launched a website at “Zafemmusic.com” and released a musical album under the name “Zafem.” They ignored plaintiffs’ cease and desist letters.

Plaintiffs’ complaint includes three claims: counterfeiting and infringement, false designation of origin, and common law unfair competition.

Plaintiffs pleaded plausible federal and state claims. For federal trademark infringement under Lanham Act. A plaintiff must show that: (1) it owns a registered mark, (2) the defendant acted without consent, (3) the defendant used the mark in commerce, (4) the use was tied to sales, distribution, or ads, and (5) the use was likely to cause confusion.

For false designation under Lanham Act, a plaintiff must show: (1) a protectable mark, and (2) a likelihood that the defendant’s use will confuse buyers about source or sponsorship. Given the default, the complaint’s liability facts are treated as true, and those elements are satisfied.

Plaintiffs also sought statutory damages under section 35 of the Lanham Act. The statute allows up to $200,000 per infringed mark, or up to $2 million per mark if the infringement is willful. Willfulness can be inferred when defendants deliberately continue to infringe, ignore notice, or default on the merits.  Here, failed USPTO registration attempts, repeated use after notice, and silence in the face of the lawsuit speak to willfulness.

Statutory Damages

Even when willfulness is clear, courts still need a basis for the number. Plaintiffs asked for the statutory maximum. The record did not support $2 million. The court noted that while default makes discovery hard, plaintiffs can still assemble estimates and evidence:

The court rejected a baked-in rule that any willful infringer in default owes the maximum. Instead, the court awarded $1 million in statutory damages, balancing willfulness with the limits of the record.

Plaintiffs also submitted a proposed default judgment that tried to combine the award with execution steps, naming third parties holding funds and ordering them to remit. The court declined to do that. Judgments state the amount owed.

Courts may issue permanent injunctions on default when these conditions are met. On this record, those requirements were satisfied. The court granted the motion in part and stated it would enter a separate Default Judgment and Injunction under Rule 58(a).

Practical Next Steps for Plaintiff and Zafèm

Default can feel binary, but both sides still have options. Here is a clear path to stronger results, whether you own the mark or you are accused of using it.

For plaintiff: build a strong record and ask for targeted relief

• Gather proof: registration for the “Zafem World Entertainment” stylized mark, specimens of use, screenshots of the defendant’s site and socials, dates, and sales channels.

• Show harm: lost sales, loss of control over your brand, buyer confusion, event booking issues, and any reputational impact.

• Be precise in your ask: injunction terms that cover the right goods and services, redirects, domain or handle transfers that are supported by evidence, and clear steps for takedowns.

• Support money requests: declarations, financials, event data, marketing spend, and a solid method for calculating damages or selecting statutory amounts.

For defendants: act fast and show good cause

• Appear quickly: contact the court and file a response as soon as you learn of the case. Silence leads to default.

• Move to set aside default: if the Clerk already entered default, ask the court to lift it for good cause, and explain any mistake, neglect, or confusion.

• Preserve defenses: gather proof that you used a different mark, used it in a different channel, or have consent or a senior right.

• Reduce exposure: even if liability is likely, you can narrow the injunction and limit money awards with real sales data, proof of limited use, and a plan to stop.

What evidence helps on remedies

• For injunctions: ongoing use after notice, control of domains, product listings, upcoming tours or releases, and evidence of confusion.

• For money: sales records, profit reports, advertising spend, web traffic during the infringing period, and comparisons to your baseline.

• For statutory damages: willfulness factors, such as ignored letters, continued sales, failed USPTO attempts, and copying.

Default is not a shortcut to the maximum payout, but it is a powerful tool when the record is strong. The “Zafem World Entertainment” case shows how courts accept well pleaded liability facts on default, then calibrate remedies based on proof. Brand owners should build a tight file, ask for targeted relief, and support any money request with real numbers. Zafèm should appear fast, explain any mistake, and present data that narrows exposure. Skipping court rarely ends well, and judges notice. If your name is on the docket, show up, or someone else will write the ending for you.