Case 2:22-cv-03585-JLS-AFM Document 19 Filed 01/03/23 Pagelof2 Page |ID#:121

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL Case No. 2:22-cv-03585-JLS-AFM Date: January 03, 2023 Title: Simple Design Ltd. v. Dairy-Queen Vision Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE V.R. Vallery N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: Not Present Not Present PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Plaintiff Simple Design Ltd. (“Simple Design’”’) filed this trademark action on May 25, 2022, alleging that Defendant Dairy-Queen Vision infringed on the following icons it uses in association with its mobile applications for downloading and playing videos:

(Compl., Doc. 1 § 10.) In the Complaint, Simple Design alleges that these icons are registered under Registration Nos. 6274928, 6274929, and 6197407. (Ud. J§ 12, 14, 16.) After the clerk entered default against Dairy-Queen Vision on October 3, 2022 (see Doc. 16), Simple Design filed a Motion for Default Judgment on October 19, 2022. (Mot., Doc. 17). In its Motion, Simple Design alleges that the icons that were infringed against were the following: WY and (Ud. at 6.) The Motion further alleges that these icons are registered as “Registration Nos. 6274928, 6274929, and 6197407”, i.e., the identical registration numbers alleged in the Complaint. (/d.) It is plain that one of the icons alleged in the Complaint differs from CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL t—(‘SOSCSC*~‘~*dL*S

Case 2:22-cv-03585-JLS-AFM Document 19 Filed 01/03/23 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:122 ____________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-03585-JLS-AFM Date: January 03, 2023 Title: Simple Design Ltd. v. Dairy-Queen Vision that alleged in the Motion. Where, as here, the Defendant has not appeared to contest Plaintiff’s case, the Court may nevertheless decline default judgment where there is reason to think there would be a “dispute concerning material facts.” Eitel v. McCool,

(9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, why the Complaint and Motion differ in this respect.

Initials of Preparer: vrv

______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2