ABS-CBN Corporation et al v. hdmvs.top et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-23449-CIV-MARTINEZ/SANCHEZ
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HDMVS.TOP, et al.,
Defendants,
_______________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFFS ’
MOTION FOR E NTRY OF DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs ABS-CBN Corporation, ABS-CBN Film
Productions, Inc. d/b/a Star Cinema, and ABS-CBN International’s (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”
or “ABS-CBN”) Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment. ECF No. 35.1 A Clerk’s default
was entered against Defendants.2 ECF No. 32. Plaintiffs now seek entry of final default judgment
against Defendants. ECF No. 35. Defendants did not file a response to the complaint, to Plaintiffs’
motion for entry of clerk’s default, or to the motion for default judgment, and the deadlines to do
so have long passed. After careful consideration of Plaintiffs’ filings, the record, and the applicable
law, and for the reasons discussed below, the undersigned RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDS
that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment, ECF No. 35, be GRANTED.
1 The Honorable Jose E. Martinez referred all matters relating to Plaintiffs’ motion for final default
judgment to the undersigned. ECF No. 36.
2 Defendants are the Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations identified by
domain name in the complaint’s caption and in Schedule “A” to the complaint. ECF No. 1 at 36.
Schedule “A” is also attached hereto.
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 1 of 21

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs sued Defendants for trademark counterfeiting and infringement under Section 32
of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (Count I); false designation of origin pursuant to Section
43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C § 1125(a) (Count II); common law unfair competition (Count
III); common law trademark infringement (Count IV); direct infringement of copyright (Count V);
and contributory infringement of copyright (Count VI). ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff ABS-CBN International is the owner of two federally registered trademarks (the
“ABS-CBN Registered Marks”) and one common law mark (the “ABS-CBN Common Law
Mark”) (collectively, the “ABS-CBN Marks”). 	Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26; ECF No. 1-2 (certificates of
registration); ECF No. 1 at 37. Plaintiffs all share exclusive rights in and to the ABS-CBN Marks.
Id. at ¶¶ 31, 56. Moreover, Plaintiffs are all licensed to use and enforce the ABS-CBN Marks. Id.
The ABS-CBN Marks are used in connection with the creation and distribution of high-quality
entertainment content and services. See id. at ¶¶ 7-8, 27, 37-38.
Further, Plaintiff ABS-CBN Film Productions, Inc. is the owner of the registered copyright
in and to the movie specifically identified in Exhibit 2 to the complaint. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 32; ECF
No. 1-3; ECF No. 1 at 38. 	Moreover, Plaintiff ABS-CBN Corporation is the owner of many
unregistered copyrights to TV shows initially produced in the Philippines. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 33; ECF
No. 1-4 (illustrative examples of unauthorized performances of ABS-CBN’s unregistered
copyrighted works). Collectively, these registered and unregistered copyrighted works are referred
to herein as the “Copyrighted Works.” 	Plaintiffs all share exclusive rights in and to the
Copyrighted Works, including the rights to distribute and perform the Copyrighted Works and to
enforce their rights in the Copyrighted Works. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 35, 56.
Defendants, through their various Internet websites operating under the domain names
identified on Schedule “A” hereto (the “Subject Domain Names”), have advertised, promoted,
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 2 of 21

3
offered for distribution, distributed, and/or publicly performed the Copyrighted Works via their
distribution services—without authorization—using counterfeit and infringing reproductions of
the ABS-CBN Marks. Id. at ¶¶ 40-52, 54; see also ECF No. 5-1 at ¶¶ 11-14 (Declaration of Elisha
Lawrence Meehan); ECF No. 5-2 at ¶ 2 (Declaration of Christine Ann Daley).
Although Defendants may not copy and infringe any ABS-CBN Mark for the category of
services protected, Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence showing that each Defendant has
infringed at least one or more of the ABS-CBN Marks and Copyrighted Works. 	ECF No. 1 at
¶¶ 40-53; see ECF No. 1-4. 	Defendants are not now, nor have they ever been, authorized or
licensed to use, reproduce, or make counterfeits, reproductions, or colorable imitations of the ABS-
CBN Marks or to perform or distribute the ABS-CBN Copyrighted Works. See id. at ¶¶ 40-46,
56.
Plaintiffs further assert that Defendants’ unlawful activities have caused and will continue
to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiffs because Defendants have (1) caused confusion, mistake,
and deception among consumers and the general public as to the origins and quality of the
Copyrighted Works and the services provided under the ABS-CBN Marks through Defendants’
operation of the Subject Domain Names; (2) misrepresented to members of the consuming public
that the counterfeit services and content that were being advertised and distributed were Plaintiffs’
genuine, non-infringing services and content; (3) competed with Plaintiffs for space within organic
search engine and social media results, thereby increasing Plaintiffs’ marketing costs, decreasing
the visibility of Plaintiffs’ content and services, and depriving Plaintiffs of a valuable marketing
and consumer education tool; and (4) degraded the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs’ ABS-CBN
Marks. E.g., id. at ¶¶ 41, 50, 53-54, 58, 70, 75-76, 81, 84-85, 90, 96-97.
In their motion, Plaintiffs seek the entry of default final judgment against Defendants and
further request that the Court enjoin Defendants from further counterfeiting and infringing
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 3 of 21

4
activities, and award Plaintiffs statutory damages against each Defendant pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 1117(c) and statutory damages against Defendant No. 1 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). 	ECF
No. 35 at 1. Plaintiffs further request that the Court (i) cancel, or at Plaintiffs’ election, transfer
the Subject Domain Names at issue to Plaintiffs and require Defendants, their agents, or assignees
to assign all rights, title, and interest to the Subject Domain Names to Plaintiffs; and (ii)
permanently disable, delist, or deindex the websites’ uniform resource locators (“URLs”) and the
Subject Domain Names from all search engines. Id. at 1-2.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead
or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the
party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d
1309, 1316 (11th Cir. 2002). The effect of a clerk’s default is that all of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded
allegations are deemed admitted. See Giovanno v. Fabec, 804 F.3d 1361, 1366 (11th Cir. 2015);
Amguard Ins. Co. v. Super Winn Nail Spa, Inc., No. 23-61304, 2024 WL 996444, at *1 (S.D. Fla.
Mar. 5, 2024) (citing Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987)); see also
Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)
(defaulted defendant deemed to admit well-pled allegations, but “not held to admit facts that are
not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law”).
Only the well-pleaded allegations are admitted because “entry of default judgment is only
warranted when there is a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered, with the
standard for ‘a sufficient basis’ for the judgment being akin to that necessary to survive a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Singleton v. Dean, 611 F. App’x 671, 671 (11th Cir. 2015)
(“The complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face, which is met when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 4 of 21

5
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”);
Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1244-45 (11th Cir. 2015); Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Pol’y BRT3A000415-02 v. A.M.A. Consulting & Constr. Servs.,
No. 21-cv-20979, 2022 WL 542893, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2022), report and recommendation
adopted, 2022 WL 539183 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2022). 	Therefore, before entering a default
judgment, a court must ensure that the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint state a substantive
cause of action and provide a sufficient basis for the particular relief sought. Tyco Fire & Sec.,
LLC v. Alcocer, 218 F. App’x 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2007); see also, e.g., Luxottica Grp. S.p.A. v.
Individual, P’ship or Unincorporated Ass’n, No. 17-CV-61471, 2017 WL 6949260, at *2 (S.D.
Fla. Oct. 3, 2017) (“Because the defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well pleaded or
to admit conclusions of law, the Court must first determine whether there is a sufficient basis in
the pleading for the judgment to be entered.”). 	If the admitted facts are sufficient to establish
liability, then the Court must ascertain the appropriate amount of damages. Nishimatsu Constr.
Co., 515 F.2d at 1206. Where all the essential evidence needed to determine damages is found in
the record, an evidentiary hearing on damages is not required. See, e.g., SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d
1225, 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005); Bandyopadhyay v. Defendant 1, No. 22-CV-22907, 2023 WL
2395475, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2023).
If there are multiple defendants, a plaintiff must state in the motion for default final
judgment that there are no allegations of joint and several liability and set forth the basis why there
is no possibility of inconsistent liability. 	Zuru Inc. v. 	Individuals, No. 1:23-cv-22217-
WILLIAMS/REID, 2024 WL 1809310, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2024). 	Generally, if one
defendant who is alleged to be jointly and severally liable with other defendants defaults, judgment
should not be entered against that defendant until the matter is adjudicated against all the remaining
defendants. 	Id. (citing 10A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 5 of 21

6
Procedure § 2690 (3d ed. 1998), and Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872) (“[A] final
decree on the merits against the defaulting Defendant alone, pending the continuance of the cause,
would be incongruous and illegal.”)).
Here, Plaintiffs have explained in their motion that they are not seeking to hold Defendants
jointly liable. ECF No. 25 at 1 n.1. All Defendants have failed to appear and have defaulted. ECF
No. 31; see also ECF No. 35-1 at ¶¶ 4-8 (Declaration of Christine Ann Daley). Therefore, there is
no possibility of inconsistent liability among Defendants based on the allegations in the complaint,
and default judgment may accordingly be entered.
III. 	ANALYSIS
A. Claims
1. 	Trademark Counterfeiting and Infringement Pursuant to § 32 of the Lanham Act
(15 U.S.C. § 1114) (Count I)
Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, provides liability for trademark
infringement if, without the consent of the registrant, a defendant uses “in commerce any
reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark” which is “likely to
cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). In order to prevail on
a trademark infringement claim under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, Plaintiffs must demonstrate
that (1) they had prior rights to the mark at issue; and (2) Defendants adopted a mark or name that
was the same or confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ trademark such that consumers were likely to
confuse the two. Frehling Enters., Inc. v. Int’l Select Grp., Inc., 192 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir.
1999); see also Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1193 (11th Cir. 2001)
(citing Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Longhorn Steaks, Inc., 106 F.3d 355, 360 (11th Cir.
1997)).
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 6 of 21

7
To establish their claims, Plaintiffs alleged that they are the owners of all rights in and to
the ABS-CBN Marks, see ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 22, 26, and that Defendants, without Plaintiffs’
permission, id. at ¶¶ 24, 29, are using “identical copies” of one or more of the ABS-CBN Marks,
id. at ¶ 40, and “actively using, promoting, and otherwise advertising, distributing, and performing
substantial quantities of ABS-CBN’s Copyrighted Works under the ABS-CBN Marks via their
Counterfeit Services,” id. at ¶ 41. According to the complaint, Defendants’ trademark-infringing
activities “are likely to cause and actually are causing confusion, mistake, and deception among
members of the trade and the general consuming public” and damage to Plaintiffs. Id. at ¶ 76, see
also, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 40-53. Thus, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts establishing each of the
elements necessary to state a claim for trademark counterfeiting and infringing under § 32 of the
Lanham Act and are entitled to default judgment on Count I.
2. 	False Designation of Origin Pursuant to § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C.
§ 1125(a)) (Count II)
To prevail on their claim for false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), Plaintiffs must establish that Defendants used in commerce, in
connection with any goods or services, “any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any
combination thereof, or any false designation of origin” that is “likely to cause confusion, or to
cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association” of Defendants with
Plaintiffs, or “as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of” Defendants’ goods, services, or
commercial activities by Plaintiffs. 	See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). 	The test for liability for false
designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) is the same as for a trademark counterfeiting and
infringement claim—i.e., whether the public is likely to be deceived or confused by the similarity
of the marks at issue. See, e.g., Zuru Inc., 2024 WL 1809310, at *2 (citing Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 7 of 21

8
Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 780 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring)); Fendi S.r.l. v. Bag, No. 19-cv-
61356, 2019 WL 4693677, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2019).
Here, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ services are “using virtually identical copies of
the ABS-CBN Marks to perform and distribute the Copyrighted Works, including within many of
ABS-CBN’s important business markets, such as the State of Florida and the United States of
America.” ECF No. 1 at ¶ 81. Further, Defendants’ counterfeit services are “different in quality,”
which is “likely to cause confusion in the trade and among consumers as to at least the origin or
sponsorship” of the services. 	Id.; see also id. at ¶ 40. 	Plaintiffs’ allegations establishing that
Defendants used the ABS-CBN Marks in commerce and caused confusion are sufficient to state a
claim for false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to default judgment on Count II.
3. 	Common Law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement (Counts III and IV)
“The analysis of Florida common law claims of trademark infringement and unfair
competition is the same as federal claims.” GR Opco, LLC v. Eleven IP Holdings, No. 22-24119-
CIV, 2024 WL 4110524, at *6 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024
WL 4104288 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2024); see also, e.g., KAWS, Inc. v. Printify Inc., No. 23-CV-
24063, 2024 WL 3916493, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2024) (“Florida law unfair competition claims
are evaluated in same manner as trademark infringement claims.”); Casa Dimitri Corp. v. Invicta
Watch Co. of Am., Inc., 270 F. Supp. 3d 1340, 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (concluding that “the legal
analysis for Lanham Act claims applies to” Florida claims of unfair competition); PetMed
XPRESS, Inc. v. MedPets.com, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1218 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (“The analysis
of liability for Florida common law trademark infringement is the same as under the Lanham
Act.”); Investacorp, Inc. v. Arabian Inv. Banking Corp. (Investcorp) E.C., 931 F.2d 1519, 1521
(11th Cir. 1991) (recognizing that the analysis of Florida statutory and common law claims of
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 8 of 21

9
trademark infringement and unfair competition is the same as under the federal trademark
infringement claim).
As to Count III, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants are “promoting, advertising, and
otherwise facilitating access to the Copyrighted Works using counterfeits and/or infringements of
one or more of the ABS-CBN Marks” and using the ABS-CBN Marks to “unfairly compete with
ABS-CBN for (i) space in search engine results across an array of search terms and (ii) visibility
on the World Wide Web,” all of which is “likely to cause and [is] causing confusion, mistake, and
deception among consumers.” ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 89-91. These allegations are sufficient to state a
Florida common law claim for unfair competition. As to Count IV, Plaintiffs alleged that they are
the owners of the ABS-CBN Marks and that Defendants’ use of the ABS-CBN Marks is “likely to
cause and [is] causing confusion, mistake and deception among consumers.” Id. at ¶¶ 94-97. Thus,
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts establishing the elements of the common law unfair
competition and trademark infringement claims and are entitled to default judgment on both
claims.
4. Direct Infringement and Contributory Infringement of Copyright (Counts V and VI)
The Copyright Act provides that “[a]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the
copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section
106A(a) . . . is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author.” 	17 U.S.C. § 501(a).
Accordingly, to prevail on their claim of direct infringement of their rights pursuant to the
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1), (3) and (4), Plaintiffs must “show ownership of the allegedly
infringed material” and “must demonstrate that the alleged infringers violated at least one
exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106.” A&M Recs., Inc. v. Napster,
Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001); see also, e.g., Bell v. Wilmott Storage Servs., LLC, 12
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 9 of 21

10
F.4th 1065, 1080 (9th Cir. 2021); Feist Publ’n, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361
(1991) (explaining that a copyright infringement action requires a plaintiff to prove “(1) ownership
of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original”);
Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton, 769 F.3d 1232, 1242 n.5, 1248 (11th Cir. 2014); Disney Enters.,
Inc. v. Hotfile Corp., No. 11-20427, 2013 WL 6336286, at *30 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2013)
(explaining that to “make a prima facie case of direct infringement” a plaintiff must “prov[e]
ownership of a particular work and evidence of unauthorized copying”). 	“One of the rights
guaranteed to a copyright owner by the Copyright Act is the ‘exclusive right to perform the
copyrighted work publicly,’ which is infringed by transmitting or otherwise communicating a
performance to the public in the form of streaming over the internet.” Caracol Television, S.A. v.
TVmia Int’l Corp., No. 16-23486-CIV, 2017 WL 6389719, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2017) (citing
Am. Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2498, 2502 (2014)).
To establish a cause of action for secondary (contributory) infringement of copyright, “a
plaintiff must establish: (1) direct infringement; (2) that defendant had knowledge of the direct
infringement; and (3) that defendant intentionally induced, encouraged or materially contributed
to the direct infringement.” 	See Tiffany (NJ), LLC v. Dongping, No. 10-61214-CIV, 2010 WL
4450451, at *5 n.1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2010) (citing MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S.
913, 930 (2005)).
Plaintiffs have alleged that they are the owners of the registered and unregistered
copyrights at issue in this matter. See ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 32-34, 100. Plaintiffs have also alleged,
and demonstrated through evidence submitted to the Court, that Defendants have infringed ABS-
CBN’s exclusive rights to the Copyrighted Works by copying, performing, and distributing the
Copyrighted Works, and they have thereby established the requisites for direct infringement of
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 10 of 21

11
copyright. See id. at ¶¶ 40, 45, 100-04, ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-3, 1-4; see also, e.g., ABS-CBN Corp. v.
Barrientos, No. 15-61515-CIV, 2015 WL 10845783, at *3 n.1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2015) (“As to
the direct infringement of copyright claim, Defendant’s ongoing copying, dissemination and
performance of ABS-CBN’s Copyrighted Works by facilitating access to and instantly streaming
pirated copies of ABS-CBN’s Copyrighted Works for users through his websites, directly infringes
ABS-CBN’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1), (3) and (4).”), report
and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 10791899 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2015). 	Additionally,
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants had full knowledge of Plaintiffs’ ownership and exclusive rights
in and to the Copyrighted Works. 	ECF No. 1 at ¶ 56; see also, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 41, 68, 104, 110.
Lastly, Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants intentionally induced, encouraged, or materially
contributed to the direct infringement of the Copyrighted Works by the users of the Defendants’
counterfeit services, who perform, copy, and/or distribute the Copyrighted Works without
authorization or right. See id. at ¶¶ 68, 104, 108-111.
Thus, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts establishing each of the elements necessary
to state a claim for direct and contributory copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501
and are entitled to default judgment on their copyright claims.
Because Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to establish the elements of each of their
claims, and because the factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint have been substantiated by
sworn declarations and other evidence establishing Defendants’ liability under each of the claims
asserted in the complaint, see ECF Nos. 1-4, 5-1, 5-2, entry of default judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and against Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is appropriate.
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 11 of 21

12
B. Injunctive Relief
Pursuant to the Lanham Act, a district court is authorized to issue an injunction “according
to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable,” to prevent
violations of trademark law. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). Indeed, “[i]njunctive relief is the remedy
of choice for trademark and unfair competition cases, since there is no adequate remedy at law for
the injury caused by a defendant’s continuing infringement.” Burger King Corp. v. Agad, 911 F.
Supp 1499, 1509-10 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (citing Century 21 Real Est. Corp. v. Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175,
1180 (9th Cir. 1988)). Moreover, even in a default judgment setting, injunctive relief is available.
See, e.g., PetMed XPRESS, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d at 1222-23; eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
547 U.S. 388, 392-93 (2006).
Permanent injunctive relief is appropriate where a plaintiff demonstrates that (1) it has
suffered irreparable injury; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; (3) the balance of hardship
favors an equitable remedy; and (4) an issuance of an injunction is in the public’s interest. eBay,
Inc., 547 U.S. at 392-93. 	Plaintiffs have carried their burden on each of the four factors.
Accordingly, permanent injunctive relief is appropriate.
In trademark cases, “a sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of confusion . . . may by
itself constitute a showing of . . . [a] substantial threat of irreparable harm.” McDonald’s Corp. v.
Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1310 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting E. Remy Martin & Co. v. Shaw-Ross
Int’l Imports, 756 F.2d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1985)); see also Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l
Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1995) (“There is no doubt that the continued sale of
thousands of pairs of counterfeit jeans would damage LS & CO’s business reputation and decrease
its legitimate sales.”). Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Defendants’ unlawful actions have caused
Plaintiffs irreparable injury and will continue to do so if Defendants are not permanently enjoined.
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 12 of 21

13
E.g., ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 12, 70, 75-77, 79, 87, 92, 98, 106, 119. Further the complaint alleges, and
the submissions by Plaintiffs show, that Defendants are promoting, distributing, and performing
ABS-CBN’s Copyrighted Works via unauthorized distribution services on the Subject Domain
Names, and consumers viewing Defendants’ counterfeit services would actually confuse them for
genuine services and content bearing the ABS-CBN Marks. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 40-58. Indeed, the
complaint establishes that Defendants’ “counterfeiting and infringing activities are likely to cause
and actually are causing confusion, mistake, and deception among members of the trade and the
general consuming public as to the origin and quality of Defendants’ Counterfeit Services.” Id. at
¶ 76.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law so long as Defendants continue to operate the
Subject Domain Names because Plaintiffs cannot control the quality of what appears to be their
services in the marketplace. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 87. An award of monetary damages alone will not
cure the injury to Plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill that will result if Defendants’ infringing and
counterfeiting actions are allowed to continue. 	Moreover, Plaintiffs face hardship from their
inability to control their reputation in the marketplace. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 41, 43, 50, 53, 75-76,
87; see also ECF No. 5-1 at ¶ 30. By contrast, Defendants face no hardship if they are prohibited
from the infringement of the ABS-CBN Marks and Copyrighted Works, which is an unlawful act.
Finally, the public interest supports the issuance of a permanent injunction against
Defendants to prevent consumers from being misled by Defendants’ counterfeit services. 	See
Arista Recs., Inc. v. Beker Enters., Inc., 298 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (finding that
the imposition of an injunction would not disserve the public interest because “the public interest
is the interest in upholding copyright protections”) (quoting Autoskill, Inc. v. Nat’l Educ. Support
Sys., Inc., 994 F.2d 1476, 1499 (10th Cir. 1993)); Nike, Inc. v. Leslie, 1985 WL 5251, at *1 (M.D.
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 13 of 21

14
Fla. June 24, 1985) (“[A]n injunction to enjoin infringing behavior serves the public interest in
protecting consumers from such behavior.”).
Unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing to infringe on the ABS-CBN Marks and
Copyrighted Works, they will be free to continue infringing Plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights
with impunity and will continue to defraud the public with their illegal activities. Accordingly, the
undersigned recommends that Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction be granted.
Additionally, “[t]he Court’s broad equity powers allow it to fashion injunctive relief
necessary to stop Defendants’ infringing activities,” which may properly include “injunctive relief
to eliminate the means by which Defendants are conducting their unlawful activities” by
“[o]rdering the cancellation or transfer” to Plaintiff of the domain names used by Defendants for
their infringing activities, so that the domain names “may be disabled from further use as platforms
for the infringement of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights.” 	ABS-CBN Corp. v. abscbn-
teleserye.com, No. 17-61051-CIV, 2017 WL 6947726, at *5-6 & n.5 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2017)
(collecting cases); see also, e.g., Malletier v. Individuals, Bus. Entities, & Unincorporated Ass’ns
Identified on Schedule “A,” No. 25-60003-CIV, 2025 WL 2256488, at *6 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2025).
Here, given the nature of Defendants’ infringing activities, the undersigned also recommends that
this Court (i) cancel, or at Plaintiffs ’ election, transfer the Subject Domain Names at issue to
Plaintiffs and require Defendants, their agents or assignees to assign all rights, title and interest to
the Subject Domain Names to Plaintiffs; and (ii) permanently disable, delist, or deindex the
websites ’ uniform resource locators (“URLs”) and the Subject Domain Names from all search
engines.
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 14 of 21

15
C. Requested Statutory Damages
1. 	Statutory Damages for Trademark Infringement
In a case involving the use of counterfeit marks in connection with a sale, offering for sale,
or distribution of goods, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) provides that a plaintiff may elect an award of
statutory damages at any time before final judgment is rendered in the sum of not less than
$1,000.00 nor more than $200,000.00 per counterfeit mark per type of good or service. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1117(c)(1). In addition, if the Court finds that Defendants’ counterfeiting actions were willful,
it may impose damages above the maximum limit up to $2,000,000.00 per mark per type of good
or service. 	15 U.S.C § 1117(c)(2). 	Here, Plaintiffs have elected statutory damages pursuant to
§ 1117(c) as to Count I of the complaint.3 ECF No. 35 at 12.
Statutory damages under the Lanham Act are “particularly appropriate in the default
judgment context” because it is difficult to ascertain defendants’ profits and because defendants
have not participated in the litigation. 	See CreeLED, Inc. v. Individuals, Bus. Entities &
Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A,” No. 22-CV-23683-JEM/Becerra, 2023 WL
6130593, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2023) (citing Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Benefitfortiffany.com, No. 16-
60829-Civ-Lenard/Goodman, 2016 WL 8679081, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2016)); see also PetMed
Express, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d at 1220 (statutory damages are especially “appropriate in default
judgment cases due to infringer nondisclosure”). The Court has wide discretion to determine the
amount of such statutory damages. 	See PetMed Express, Inc., 336 F. Supp 2d at 1219 (citing
Cable/Home Commc’n Corp. v. Network Prod., Inc., 902 F. 2d 839, 853 (11th Cir. 1990)). An
3 Although Plaintiffs have also asserted claims for false designation of origin under § 43(a) of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count II), common law unfair competition (Count III), and
common law trademark infringement (Count IV), Plaintiffs acknowledge that damages for such
claims are encompassed within their requested damages pursuant to § 1117(c), and Plaintiffs seeks
no additional damages based on those claims. See ECF No. 35 at 12 n. 4.
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 15 of 21

16
award of statutory damages is appropriate despite a plaintiff’s inability to prove actual damages
caused by a defendant’s infringement. Under Armour, Inc. v. 51nfljersey.com, No. 13-62809-civ,
2014 WL 1652044, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2014) (citing Form Motor Co. v. Cross, 441 F. Supp
2d 837, 852 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (“[A] successful plaintiff in a trademark infringement case is
entitled to recover enhanced statutory damages even where its actual damages are nominal or non-
existent.”)); Playboy Enters. Inc. v. Universal Tel-A-Talk, Inc., No. CIV.A. 96-6961, 1998 WL
767440, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 1998) (awarding statutory damages where plaintiff failed to prove
actual damages or profits). An award of statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) is
“intended not just for compensation for losses, but also to deter wrongful conduct.” See CreeLED,
2023 WL 6130593, at *4 (citing PetMed Express, 336 F. Supp. 2d at 1220-21)).
Here, the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint, which are taken as true, clearly establish that
Defendants intentionally copied the ABS-CBN Marks for the purpose of deriving benefit from
Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation. E.g., ECF No. 1 at ¶ 57. As such, the Lanham Act permits the
Court to award up to $2,000,000.00 per infringing mark on each type of good as statutory damages
to ensure that Defendants do not continue their intentional and willful counterfeiting activities.
The record in this case demonstrates that each Defendant promoted, distributed, advertised,
offered for sale, and/or sold at least one service bearing and/or using marks that were, in fact,
counterfeits of at least one of the ABS-CBN Marks. See id. at ¶¶ 17, 21; ECF No. 1-4. Based on
the above considerations, Plaintiffs request that the Court award statutory damages of one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000.00) against each Defendant because each Defendant used at least one
counterfeit mark on one type of service. See ECF No. 35 at 14. The requested amount of statutory
damages should be sufficient to deter Defendants and others from continuing to counterfeit or
otherwise infringe Plaintiffs’ ABS-CBN Marks, compensate Plaintiffs, and punish Defendants, all
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 16 of 21

17
stated goals of 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). The undersigned finds that this requested award of statutory
damages—$100,000.00 per Defendant—falls within the permissible statutory range under 15
U.S.C. § 1117(c) and is just.
2. 	Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement
Plaintiffs’ complaint also requests statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) for
copyright infringement. 	A copyright owner may choose between two types of damages: “actual
damages and any additional profits of the infringer” or “statutory damages.” 17 U.S.C. § 504(a); see
also id. at § 504(b)-(c); Jordan v. Time, Inc., 111 F.3d 102, 104 (11th Cir. 1997). The Copyright
Act provides for statutory damages for copyright infringements “in a sum of not less than $750 or
more than $30,000 as the court considers just.” 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). “In addition, pursuant to 17
U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), the Court in its discretion may increase an award of statutory damages up to
$150,000.00 when infringement was committed willfully.” XYZ Corp. v. Individuals, P’ships, &
Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A”, 668 F. Supp. 3d 1268, 1276-77 (S.D. Fla. 2023).
“In awarding enhanced damages in the context of section 504(c)(2), ‘deterrence of future violations
is a legitimate consideration’ because ‘defendants must not be able to sneer in the face of copyright
owners and copyright laws.’” XYZ Corp., 668 F. Supp. 3d at 1277 (quoting Cable/Home Commc’n
Corp. v. Network Prods., 902 F.2d 829, 851 (11th Cir. 1990)). “In interpreting section 504(c), courts
have held that the statute vests the trial court with wide discretion to set damages within the statutory
limits.” XYZ Corp., 668 F. Supp. 3d at 1277 (quoting Major Bob Music v. Stubbs, 851 F. Supp. 475,
481 (S.D. Ga. 1994)).
Defendants, who have not appeared, control all the necessary information for a calculation
of relief under § 504(b). 	See ECF No. 35-1 at ¶¶ 4-8. 	As a result, Plaintiffs cannot calculate an
amount recoverable pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Instead, Plaintiffs seek statutory damages for
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 17 of 21

18
Defendants’ willful infringement of Plaintiffs’ ABS-CBN copyrights under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).
See ECF No. 35 at 15-16.
Plaintiffs request that the Court award them $30,000.00 against Defendant Number 1,
hdmvs.top (“Defendant 1”). 	Id. at 16. 	To determine whether Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory
damages for Defendant 1’s willful infringement, the undersigned must first determine if the
copyright infringement was willful. 	XYZ Corp., 668 F. Supp. 3d at 1277. 	“Willful infringement
occurs ‘when the infringer acted with “actual knowledge or reckless disregard for whether its
conduct infringed upon the plaintiff’s copyright.”’” Id. (quoting Arista Recs., Inc., 298 F. Supp. 2d
at 1312); see also Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP, 795 F.3d 1255, 1272 (11th Cir. 2015)
(“[W]illful copyright infringement under § 504(c)(2) encompasses reckless disregard of the
possibility that one’s actions are infringing a copyright.”). 	A court may infer that a defendant
willfully infringed upon a plaintiff’s copyright because of a defendant’s default. XYZ Corp., 668 F.
Supp. 3d at 1277.
Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “have actual or constructive knowledge, or should
have knowledge, of their infringement of ABS-CBN’s Copyrighted Works” because “they advertise
and promote the content on their websites operating under the Subject Domain Names” and “as the
largest media and entertainment company in the Philippines, ABS-CBN’s content is highly popular
in Filipino communities and Defendants profit as a direct result of performing that content.” ECF
No. 1 at ¶¶ 104-05. The evidence establishes Defendants willfully infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrighted
programming to attract visitors to their websites, so that they may in turn profit from these visitors’
page views in the form of advertising revenue. Id. at ¶¶ 40, 49, 62, 104. In any event, Defendants
have defaulted on Plaintiffs’ allegations of willfulness. ECF No. 32; see also ECF No. 35-1 at ¶¶ 4-8.
These facts, established by Defendants’ default and the well-pleaded facts of the complaint,
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 18 of 21

19
demonstrate that Defendants acted willfully, that is, knowingly or with at least reckless disregard of
the fact that their conduct infringed upon Plaintiffs’ exclusive copyrights. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
have adequately established that Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights was willful.
Plaintiffs request the Court award them $30,000.00 against Defendant 1 for its infringement
of the registered work entitled “The Hows of Us,” registration number PA 2-192-077, with a
registration date of June 10, 2019. See ECF No. 35 at 16; see also ECF No. 1-3; ECF No. 1-4 at
3-5. This suggested award is within the statutory range for a willful violation (as well as within the
statutory range for a non-willful violation) and is sufficient and appropriate to compensate Plaintiffs,
punish Defendant 1, and deter Defendants and others from continuing to infringe Plaintiffs’
copyrights.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs’
Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment, ECF No. 35, be GRANTED.
Pursuant to Local Magistrate Rule 4(b), the Court finds good cause to EXPEDITE the
period to serve and file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. 	Accordingly,
within seven (7) days from the date of this Report and Recommendation, that is, by March 12,
2026, the parties shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation
with the Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge. Failing to file timely objections
will bar a de novo determination by the District Judge of any issue addressed in the Report and
Recommendation, will constitute a waiver of a party’s “right to challenge on appeal the district
court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” and will only allow appellate
review of the district court order “for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir.
R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 19 of 21

20
790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); see also Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d
1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020).
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 5th day of
March 2025.
___________________________________
EDUARDO I. SANCHEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: 	Hon. Jose E. Martinez
Counsel of Record
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 20 of 21

21
SCHEDULE “A”
DEFENDANTS BY NUMBER AND SUBJECT DOMAIN NAME
Def. No. 	Subject Domain Name
1 	hdmvs.top
2 	kankoc.info
3 	lambinganpinoyflix.net
4 	tambayanteleseryes.net
4 	piinoytambayans.net
5 	pinoytambayantvs.net
5 	piinoytambayantv.su
6 	piinoytv.com
7 	pinoy-flix.com
8 	pinoyflixhd.com
9 	pinoyflixreplay.com
10 	pinoyflixstambayan.net
11 	pinoyflixz.com
11 	pinoyteleseryez.com
11 	tambayanshd.com
11 	tambayansflix.com
12 	pinoytambayano.net
12 	pinoylambingantambayans.su
13 	pinoystambayans.net
14 	pinoytambayanstv.com
15 	pinoytvflixs.org
15 	pinoytvflixteleserye.net
16 	tambayans.su
17 	teleseryetambayann.su
17 	teleseryetambayans.su
Case 1:24-cv-23449-JEM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2026 Page 21 of 21