Yep, it’s about PACIFIC WEALTH MANAGEMENT.
The plaintiff, which filed suit in the Western District of Washington, alleges it owns a federal registration to its mark in connection with “investment advice, financial consultation, and financial planning.” The complaint claims the defendant uses the identical mark in connection with finance and estate planning services, which has resulted in actual consumer confusion.
The complaint adds that after raising the issue, defendant’s principal responded by stating: “PWM, Inc. has NO clients!!!!!! Sue me if you want, there are no assets and NO clients! What are you [a]fraid of, me stealing business?”
The defendant appeared in the lawsuit but did not answer the complaint.
The plaintiff then moved for an order of default. On Sept. 7, Western District Judge Robert Lasnik denied the motion because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence it gave the defendant 14 days’ advance notice of its intent to file the motion in accordance with Local Rule 55(a).
The case cite is Pacific Wealth Management, LLC v. Pacific Wealth Management, Inc., No. 12-1310 (W.D. Wash.).