Plaintiff’s motorcycle championship trademark claims in a Schedule A case ran out of gas at default judgment because they lacked sufficient factual detail. The complaint alleged that the defendants’ use of plaintiff’s MOTOGP trademarks to sell counterfeit products caused confusion. But, the complaint failed to provide facts explaining how or why a consumer would be confused. Also, the court faulted the plaintiff for not providing a description of plaintiff’s genuine products. Therefore, the court denied default judgment and released defendants’ financial accounts.
Case: Dorna Sports v. Individuals…on Amended Schedule A, No. 24 CV 11676, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177866, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 11, 2025).
*Note: The court used the words “ordinary observer” in stating “Plaintiff fails to provide any actual facts explaining how or why an ordinary observer would be deceived.” That’s a design patent claim reference. But it is consumer confusion that is considered in trademark cases.