Berk Street Enterprises, Inc. v. Bravo Personal Care LA LLC et al — District Court Adopts Magistrate Judge’s Report, Grants Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction for Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

Background

Berk Street Enterprises, Inc. sued Bravo Personal Care LA LLC and other defendants, including United Personal Care ("UPC") and Lonnie Govan-Mendoza, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition arising from the defendants' use of the "Bravo" marks. The case proceeded against UPC in a default posture after UPC failed to defend, and Berk Street moved for default judgment under Docket No. 152.

Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 162) recommending that Berk Street's motion be granted and default judgment entered against UPC. UPC filed objections (Dkt. No. 164), Berk Street responded with related filings (Dkt. Nos. 165-67), and UPC filed a reply (Dkt. No. 168).

The district court reviewed the Report de novo, together with the relevant filings in the docket, including the underlying briefing and supporting documentation, as well as UPC's objections, Berk Street's response and related filings, and UPC's reply, before issuing this order adopting the recommendation in full.

The Court’s Holding

The court overruled UPC's objections and adopted the Report in every respect. It held that UPC may be held liable for Defendant Lonnie Govan-Mendoza's acts of trademark infringement and unfair competition and that, taking the allegations in the Complaint as true, default judgment was properly entered against UPC. The court found the Report correct, well-reasoned, and thorough.

The court also found the attorneys' fees request adequately supported. Judge Tse had previously ordered Berk Street to provide a supplemental filing in support of its fees request (Dkt. No. 160), and Berk Street complied by submitting detailed invoices on September 29, 2026 (Dkt. No. 161). UPC did not lodge any objection at that time, and the court found the supplemental submission sufficiently supported fees that were reasonable and appropriate.

Accordingly, the court granted Berk Street's Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 152) and ordered default judgment against UPC in the amount of $769,277.22, consisting of $669,856.47 in damages and $99,420.75 in attorneys' fees. The court permanently enjoined UPC, its agents, officers, servants, employees, successors and/or assigns, and all persons or companies in active concert or participation with UPC from (1) using the trademarks "Bravo Personal Care," "Bravo," or any similar trademark; (2) representing that UPC or Bravo Personal Care LA is a "branch" of Berk Street; or (3) implying that UPC or Bravo Personal Care LA are sponsored by, endorsed by, or in any way associated with Berk Street. A footnote adds that the associated filings in Docket Nos. 151 and 153 shall be terminated.

Key Takeaways

• A district court conducting de novo review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation may adopt it in every respect when it finds the report correct, well-reasoned, and thorough.
• On default, a corporate defendant may be held liable for an individual co-defendant's trademark infringement and unfair competition where the complaint's allegations, taken as true, support liability.
• A party that fails to object to a court-ordered supplemental attorneys' fees filing risks having the fee request deemed adequately supported, reasonable, and appropriate.
• A permanent injunction in a trademark default judgment can broadly bar use of the infringing marks, false "branch" representations, and any implication of sponsorship, endorsement, or association with the plaintiff.
• Objections to a well-supported report and recommendation will be overruled where the underlying record, including unchallenged supplemental submissions, supports the magistrate judge's findings.

Why It Matters

This order illustrates the mechanics and consequences of default judgment in federal trademark litigation. It shows how a defendant's failure to engage, both with the merits and with a court-ordered supplemental fee filing, can lead to a substantial damages award, attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction without a trial on the merits, and it confirms that liability for a co-defendant's infringing acts can be established on default where the complaint's allegations support it.

The decision also demonstrates the district court's role in reviewing magistrate judge recommendations de novo and confirms that wholesale adoption is appropriate when the report is thorough and the objecting party has not preserved specific, record-supported challenges. The order closes out the default-judgment briefing by terminating the associated filings in Docket Nos. 151 and 153.