Everyday People NYC v. Ali — Copycat Website and Account Hijacking Lead to Trademark Injunction

Background

Everyday People NYC alleged that former company member Roble Ali used his access to seize company funds, control email and social-media accounts, launch a copycat website, and present himself as affiliated with the entertainment-events business. The company asserted federal claims involving its registered EVERYDAYPPL mark and its EVERYDAY PEOPLE name, along with state-law business claims. After earlier service problems were corrected, Ali failed to appear and the company sought default judgment.

The Court’s Holding

The court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to enter default judgment on the registered-mark infringement and counterfeiting claim, the unregistered-mark and false-designation claim, and breach of fiduciary duty. It denied judgment on the remaining claims. The court awarded $169,000 in damages, $61,359.70 in attorneys’ fees, and $1,855 in costs.

The court also entered a permanent injunction barring Ali from holding himself out as affiliated with Everyday People, using the company’s marks or confusingly similar names, operating the copycat website, controlling company accounts, or otherwise creating confusion about the source or sponsorship of services. The order requires him to disable the infringing site, return control of company email and social-media accounts, and issue a corrective public statement.

Although the court accepted the recommended fee award, it clarified the governing Lanham Act standard. An “exceptional case” is assessed under the totality of the circumstances—not only by asking whether infringement involved fraud, bad faith, or willfulness. Considering the defendant’s knowing use of the marks to redirect customers and control business assets, the court found a fee award justified.

Key Takeaways

• Default does not eliminate the court’s duty to independently assess liability, damages, and the requested injunction.
• Trademark injunctions can require affirmative restoration of domains, email, and social-media accounts when those assets are used to impersonate the mark owner.
• Default-judgment damages cannot exceed the relief fairly demanded in the complaint.
• Lanham Act fee awards use a flexible totality-of-the-circumstances test; willfulness remains important but is not the exclusive route to an exceptional-case finding.

Why It Matters

The order shows how trademark law can address modern business impersonation that spans websites, social platforms, and internal digital accounts. It also underscores that plaintiffs seeking default judgment should plead their requested monetary relief precisely and preserve evidence supporting both damages and equitable remedies.