Legal Opinion

Chanel, Inc. v. Matos

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided August 13, 2015No. Civil Action No. 14-3509 (JBS/KMW)PublishedCited by 102 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

In this action for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114,1125(a) (hereinafter, the “Lanham Act”), Plaintiff Chanel, Inc. (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’ or “Chanel”) moves for default *682judgment under Rule 55(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ. P., against Defendant Rafaél Matos,' an individual, d/b/a fandangotees.com d/b/a jessmar d/b/a @nenemott d/b/a nenemott (hereinafter, “Defendant” or “Matos”) for failure to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs Complaint. [See Docket Item 9.]

For the reasons…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Daimler AG v. BaumanSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  2. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  3. Hritz v. Woma Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
  4. Comdyne I, Inc. v. CorbinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
  5. Opticians Ass'n of America v. Independent Opticians of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by102 opinions

  1. Lontex Corp. v. Nike, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
  2. 33 TAPS, LLC v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2025
  3. ABOUELMAKAREM v. MUSTAFADistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2025
  4. ALI v. JENKINSDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2023
  5. ANTICO v. RAM PAYMENT, L.L.C.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2024

97 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API